THE  LIBRARY 

OF 

THE  UNIVERSITY 

OF  CALIFORNIA 

LOS  ANGELES 


v??±i=^ 


Digitized  by  the  Internet  Archive 

in  2007  with  funding  from 

IVIicrosoft  Corporation 


http://www.archive.org/details/amhaaretzancientOOsulziala 


THE    AM     HA-ARETZ 
THE    ANCIENT    HEBREW^    PARLIAMENT 


A  CHAPTER  IN  THE  CONSTITUTIONAL 
HISTORY   OF  ANCIENT  ISRAEL 


BY 
MAYER    SULZBERGER 


"  And   Abraham   bowed   down    himself  before    the    Am    Ha-Aretz ' 

Gen.  23i2. 


PHILADELPHIA 

JULIUS   H,  GREENSTONE 

1909 


TO    THE    MEMORY  OF 

HENRY   CLAY    TRUMBULL 

ARCHAEOLOGIST,  RELIGIOUS  TEACHER 

CITIZEN,  SOLDIER,  FRIEND 


1 1  r>267r> 


PREFACE 


The  following  paper  was  read  before  the 
Professors  and  students  of  the  Jewish  Theolog- 
ical Seminary  of  America  and  their  invited 
guests,  on  April  29,  1909,  as  one  of  a  series  of 
popular  lectures. 

Being  printed  in  its  original  form,  indul- 
gence is  asked  for  the  redundancies  and  the  defi- 
ciencies incident  to  that  mode  of  presentation. 

M.  S. 


Philadelphia,  May,  1909. 


CONTENTS 


I.  Political  Power  of  Am  ha-aretz.  page 

Introduction    5  • 

The  Edah,  Nesiini  and  Zekenim 7 

The  Am    ha-aretz    13 

The  Am-ha-aretz  of  the   Hittites. 20 

The  Downfall  of  Athaliah 22 

The  Scene  of  the  Revolution 26 

The  Am  ha-ai-etz  and  the  Later  King-s 32 

The  Am  ha-aretz   (Rosh  ha-Keruim),  elects  Saul 36 

II.  Its  Judicial  Power. 

The  Trial   of   Jeremiah 44 

The  Trial    of    Naboth 51 

III.  The  Witness  of  Literature. 

Am  ha-aretz  in   the  Literatui'e 61 

Rosh   in   the   Literature 67 

The   Judgment   of   Solomon 00 

Conclusion     72 

Map  of  Temple  Hill  facing-  page 26 


6  THE   AM   HA-ARETZ 

beliefs  and  its  institutions;  the  former  give 
shape  to  its  religion,  the  latter  to  its  politics.  So 
that  in  the  past  as  in  the  present,  every  nation 
may  be  said  to  be  characterized  by  its  church  and 
by  its  state. 

To  say,  as  many  do,  that  the  Hebrew  people 
had  an  especial  genius  for  religion,  but  a  special 
lack  of  faculty  for  politics,  is  to  confound  indi- 
vidual psychology  with  national  psychology.  A 
particular  man  may  have  a  peculiarly  contem- 
plative, ethical,  or  mystical  temperament,  and 
thereby  show  that  he  has  more  genius  for  the 
study  and  practice  of  religion  than  for  any  other 
sphere  in  life ;  but  that  a  nation  should  exist  in 
which  all  active  temperaments  have  the  same 
bias,  is  purely  inconceivable,  since  both  religion 
and  politics  are  expressions  of  the  human  spirit. 
Any  nation  that  is  characterized  by  profundity 
or  loftiness  of  thought  and  permanence  of 
achievement  in  the  one  direction,  must  neces- 
sarily have  powerfully  expressed  itself  also  in 
the  other  direction.  Since  religion  is  the  way 
with  which  men  live  with  God,  and  politics  is 
the  way  with  which  men  live  with  men,  the  two 
tendencies  are  closely  intertwined  and  insep- 
arable. 

The  history  of  Israel  on  the  religious  side  has 
been  many  times  treated  by  great  scholars  and 
thinkers,  Jewish,  Christian  and  infidel.  The 
achievements  in  that  field  have  been  enormous. 
In  singular  contrast  is  the  narrowness  of  our 
information   on   the   governmental   history   of 


POLITICAL   POWER  7 

Israel,  and  the  mass  of  learned  labor  and  acumen 
devoted  to  the. study  of  the  Bible  during  the  last 
century  does  not  seem  to  have  added  much  to  our 
knowledge  on  this  subject. 

It  may  be  useful  therefore  to  leave  the  text- 
books and  to  look  at  the  Bible  itself. 

The  general  impression  left  on  the  mind  by 
reading  the  Pentateuch  and  the  Book  of  Joshua  is 
that  Israel  was  governed  by  a  chief  (Nasi, 
Shophet,  Melech),  who  was  at  the  head  of  the 
military  and  civil  authorities,  and  that  alongside 
of  him  was  a  High  Priest  who  controlled  the 
ecclesiastical  establishment;  that  the  Chief  had 
a  Council,  probably  bi-cameral,  to  determine 
national  policies,  that  the  smaller  chamber  w^as 
composed  of  twelve  princes  (Nesiim)  and  the 
larger  of  seventy  elders  (Zekenim),  and  that  the 
two,  in  General  Assembly,  constituted  the  Edah 
(congregation  or  parliament)  of  the  nation. 

The  modern  school  of  Biblical  critics  look 
upon  this  picture  as  fanciful  and  as  describing 
institutions  dreamed  of  but  not  actually  estab- 
lished. Our  purpose  is  to  take  up  only  one  part 
of  the  subject,  namely  that,  which  refers  to  the 
existence  in  ancient  Israel  of  a  national  Council, 
possessing  large  powers  and  acting  as  a  consti- 
tutional restraint  upon  the  caprice,  wickedness 
or  arrogance  of  kings. 

The  picture  presented  by  the  narrative  of  the 
Pentateuch  is  itself  a  fact  of  importance.  The 
imagination  of  man  is  rarely  strong  enough  to 
create  images  out  of  nothing.    We  ask  ourselves 


8  THE   AM   HA-ARETZ 

where  was  the  model  from  which  this  picture  was 
painted?  How  did  the  idea  of  a  constitutional 
parliamentary  restraint  upon  the  monarch  reach 
the  writer's  consciousness? 

To  these  questions  there  appears  to  be  no 
sufficient  answer. 

The  passages  in  which  the  Zekenim  are  men- 
tioned present  many  minute  evidences  of  the  fact 
that  in  the  writer's  consciousness  the  Council 
was  an  institution  whose  mode  of  working  was 
universally  known. 

When  God  speaks  to  Moses  who  is  tending 
the  flocks  of  his  father-in-law,  and  invites  him  to 
the  leadership  of  his  nation,  the  existence  of  a 
national  Council  is  coupled  with  the  tender: 
*'Go  and  gather  the  elders  of  Israel  together; 
thou  shalt  come,  thou  and  the  elders  to  the  King 
of  Egypt"  (Exod.  3i«.i8). 

To  the  mind  of  Moses  such  leadership  is  im- 
possible to  a  man  unskilled  in  forensic  eloquence 
with  which  to  win  the  Council  to  his  way  of 
thinking (Exod.  4io) .  And  this  necessity  is  tacitly 
admitted  when  God  names  Aaron  as  the  spokes- 
man who  can  sway  the  Council  and  the  people 
(Exod.  4i6),  and  who  in  the  event  actually  does 
so:  *'The  people  believed"  (Exod.  429-3i). 

Moses  convokes  the  Zekenim  when  the  great 
Paschal  service  is  to  be  adopted  (Exod.  122i) ; 
when  he  submits  for  acceptance  or  rejection  the 
offer  to  Israel  to  become  the  Lord's  people 
(Exod.  197.8)  ;  and  when  the  tribes  are  numbered 
(Numbers  lis). 


POLITICAL   PO^VER  9 

Moreover  the  Zekenim  of  all  the  tribes  being 
too  numerous  for  practical  work,  a  special  repre- 
sentative Council  of  seventy  selected  from  among 
the  whole  number  is  instituted  and  their  pro- 
nouncements are  declared  to  be  of  the  same  qual- 
ity as  those  of  Moses  himself  (Numbers  II16.17). 
A  special  meeting  place  is  assigned  to  them 
(Numbers  II24)  and  the  mode  of  their  convoca- 
tion is  arranged  (Numbers  102_8).  No  influence 
can  procure  membership  for  any  but  representa- 
tives of  the  several  tribes  in  due  proportion, 
Levi  excepted,  an  exclusion  which  rouses  the 
wrath  of  Aaron  and  Miriam  against  Moses 
(Numbers  I22-15). 

The  Edah  or  General  Assembly  is  composed 
of  two  chambers,  the  smaller  one  being  the  twelve 
princes  (Nesiim)  and  the  more  numerous  the 
seventy  elders  (Zekenim) .  The  priests  are  custo- 
dians of  two  silver  trumpets.  If  one  is  blown, 
the  Nesiim  (princes)  alone  assemble ;  if  the  two 
are  blown,  both  houses  come  together  (Numbers 

IO4.3). 

When  the  Assembly  adopts  a  proposition  there 
is  a  formula:  Na'aseh,  we  will  do  (Exod.  198 
243)  ;  Na'aseh  ve-nishma',  we  will  do  and  be  obe- 
dient (Exod.  247)  ;  Na'avod-Nishma',  we  will 
serve,  we  will  obey  (Josh.  2422.24). 

The  powers  of  government  are  conceived  to 
be  divisible  into  political  and  judicial  functions. 

Moses  is  assumed  to  have  at  first  exercised  all 
these  powers  himself.  It  is  his  father-in-law 
Jethro  who  advises  the  subdivision  of  the  judicial 


10  THE   AM   HA-ARETZ 

function  into  major  and  minor.  ''The  great 
things"  of  judgment  he  reserves  to  himself;  the 
smaller  matters  he  assigns  to  an  organized  force 
of  judges  (Exod.  18is_2i>).  Alongside  of  these 
and  to  fulfil  their  decrees  and  execute  other 
public  functions  stand  the  Shoterim  (officers) 
(Numbers  llie ;  Deut.  I618  299  3I28 ;  Josh,  lio  833 
240. 

The  high  judicial  function  thus  assigned  to 
Moses  is  not  to  be  administered  by  himself  alone. 
The  national  Assembly,  under  his  presidency, 
acts  as  the  High  Court:  "They  shall  bear  the 
burden  with  thee,  that  thou  bear  it  not  thyself 
alone ' '  (  Numbers  11 1 7 ) .  Nevertheless  his  presi- 
dency of  this  illustrious  body  is  no  sinecure.  He 
is  to  be  the  shepherd  to  keep  them  in  order 
(Numbers  27i6.i7). 

That  cases  of  great  importance  were  pre- 
sented for  their  judgment  was  inevitable.  The 
claim  of  Zelophehad's  daughters  involved  inter- 
tribal relations,  land  laws,  and  inheritance  laws, 
three  constitutional  questions  of  the  first  order. 
The  resolutions  were:  (1)  That  where  there 
were  no  sons,  daughters  would  inherit  (Numbers 
27/).  (2)  In  default  of  both  sons  and  daughters, 
brothers  shall  inherit  (279).  (3)  In  default  of 
sons,  daughters  and  brothers,  the  father's  broth- 
ers shall  inherit  (27io).  (4)  In  default  of  all 
these  then  the  kinsman  that  is  next  to  him  of  his 
mishpachah  (family)  shall  inherit  (27n).  (5) 
When  daughters  inherit  they  may  not  marry 
outside  their  tribe  lest  the  equilibrium  of  tribal 
landownership   be   disturbed    (Numbers   866.7). 


POLITICAL   POWER  11 

Questions  like  these  can  be  propeiiv  treated 
only  by  tribunals  of  the  most  eminent  rank,  and 
the  presence  of  such  a  body  in  a  country  is  evi- 
dence that  the  king  is  a  constitutional  monarch, 
of  limited  and  defined  powers,  and  that  the  Par- 
liamentary Court  alongside  of  him  is  to  be  reck- 
oned with  as  one  of  the  great  estates  of  the  realm. 

The  law  of  Exod.  2228  recognizes  this  posi- 
tion: **Thou  shalt  not  revile  the  Elohim,  nor 
curse  the  Nasi."    Either  is  leze  majesty. 

This  conclusion  is  moreover  supported  by 
direct  evidence.  Deut.  17i4_2o  is  a  little  law-code 
defining  the  selection,  the  qualifications  and  the 
duties  of  the  king.  The  selection  is  to  be  by  the 
Lord  and  the  enthronement  by  the  nation.  The 
qualifications  are  that  he  must  be  an  Israelite, 
not  a  foreigner.  The  duties  are  both  affirmative 
and  negative.  He  shall  write  for  himself  a  copy 
of  the  law,  shall  read  in  it  every  day,  and  shall 
observe  it  in  its  entirety.  He  is  not  to  multiply 
horses  nor  to  send  people  to  Egypt  for  procuring 
horses,  nor  multiply  wives,  nor  greatly  mviltiply 
silver  and  gold,  nor  shall  his  heart  be  lifted  up 
above  his  brethren. 

These  provisions  are  clearly  what  we  call 
"constitutional."  Not  only  must  the  king^s 
selection  be  ratified  by  the  nation,  but  express 
limitations  are  placed  on  his  power. 

An  indirect  testimony  to  the  existence  of  such 
a  constitutional  provision  is  the  travesty  of  king's 
law  contained  in  1  Sam.  Sn.ig.  It  is  a  bitter 
arraignment  of  king's  practices  as  being  viola- 


12  THE   AM   HA-ARETZ 

tive  of  the  constitution,  and  reminds  us  of  simi- 
lar diatribes  in  modern  free  states. 

The  political  functions  of  the  Edah  were  of 
equal  gravity  with  its  judicial  powers.  When 
the  spies  made  their  report  concerning  the  pros- 
pects of  conquering  Canaan,  it  was  to  the  Edah 
that  it  was  addressed,  and  that  body  was  so  ter- 
rified that  it  fell  into  a  panic  and  shouted  for  the 
death  of  Joshua  and  Caleb  who  favored  an  imme- 
diate invasion  of  the  coveted  country.  And 
Moses,  whose  esteem  for  Joshua  and  Caleb  was 
of  the  highest,  was  unable  to  procure  the  adop- 
tion of  their  views.  The  Edah  prevailed  and  its 
policy  of  unwisdom  and  cowardice  postponed 
the  conquest  for  a  generation. 

Two  instances  or  three  of  great  diplomatic 
questions  also  arose.  The  first  was  the  request  to 
the  king  of  Edom  for  passage  through  his  coun- 
try. The  account  (Numbers  20i4_2i)  does  not 
enable  us  to  say  that  the  Edah  wias  consulted. 
Moses  alone  is  mentioned,  unless  indeed  the  term 
Bene  Israel  in  the  19th  verse,  means  the 
Assembly. 

At  all  events  the  negotiations  indicate  a 
highly  developed  international  law  and  a  sophis- 
ticated and  courteous  diplomatic  language. 

When  Israel  prefers  the  same  request  to 
Sihon,  the  Amorite  king,  the  demand  for  passage 
is  not  by  Moses  but  by  Israel  (Numbers  2I21-25). 

When  the  Gibeonites  made  a  league  with  the 
conquerors,  Joshua  and  the  Assembly  (here 
called  Ish-Yisrael)  acted  together.    Joshua  pro- 


POLITICAL   POWER  13 

nouiiced  the  assent  of  Israel,  and  the  princes 
(Nesiim)  of  the  Edah  made  oath  thereto  (Josh. 
98-1  c ) .  It  turned  out  that  the  wily  Gibeonites  had 
deceived  Joshua  and  the  princes.  Nevertheless 
the  Edah,  though  it  murmured  (9i8),  abided  by 
their  act. 

Perhaps  the  most  important  political  act  re- 
corded of  the  Assembly  was  its  resolution  to 
declare  war  against  the  two  and  a  half  East- 
Jordanic  tribes  that  had  just  helped  them  con- 
quer the  Westland  (Josh.  22^0-^4). 

The  returning  braves,  it  seems,  built  an  altar 
on  the  border  of  their  country,  and  the  rumor 
reached  the  Edah  that  they  had  deteniiined  to 
set  up  a  worship  of  their  own  and  to  abandon 
the  national  God.  The  Assembly  met  at  Shiloh 
and  prepared  for  war.  Phineas  was  placed  at 
the  head  of  the  Nesiim  (there  were  but  ten  left) 
as  a  delegation  bearing  an  ultimatum.  The  im- 
puted rebellion  was  denied,  the  altar  explained 
away,  and  peace  was  preserved. 


THE  AM  HA-ARETZ 

It  is  not  however  my  purpose  to  dilate  upon 
the  Edah  of  the  Pentateuch,  which  is  well-kno^\^l 
to  all  Bible  students.  Our  present  interest  lies 
in  the  fact  that  many  scholars  believe  that  with 
the  death  of  Joshua,  the  Edah  came  to  an  end, 
that  the  parliament  as  an  institution  perished 
and  that  no  further  traces  of  it  can  be  found  until 
2 


14  THE   AM   HA-ARETZ 

we  come  to  the  Gerusia,  about  200  B.C.,  an  insti- 
tution which  was  succeeded  by  the  Great  Syna- 
gogue and  that  again  by  the  Sanhedrin.  There 
is  much  conflict  of  opinion  on  the  composition 
and  function  of  these  bodies,  but  the  agreement 
seems  general,  that  from  the  time  of  the  Judges 
to  the  reign  of  Antiochus  the  Great,  a  period  of 
about  1200  years,  there  is  no  real  evidence  of  the 
existence  of  such  a  great  Council  in  Israel. 

From  this  view  I  emphatically  dissent, 
because  the  phenomena  of  Israel's  history  and 
development  cannot  be  explained  by  it.  The  ten- 
dency of  the  historians  of  the  Jewish  nation  has 
been  to  view  the  Priests  and  Prophets  as  the 
efficient  agencies  of  Hebrew  government,  the 
former  having  charge  of  the  ceremonial  institu- 
tions, and  the  latter  being  the  great  preachers  of 
righteousness.  Incidentally  kings  and  a  few 
generals  are  introduced,  the  kings  being  either 
good  or  bad.  When  good,  they  listen  to  the 
Priests  and  the  Prophets ;  when  bad,  they  do  not. 
The  inadequacy  of  such  a  view  is  plain  from  the 
impossibility  of  realizing  how  a  people,  develop- 
ing no  other  institutions  than  these,  can,  after 
three  thousand  years  and  more,  still  continue  to 
exist  as  an  integral  body.  The  kings,  the  Priests 
and  the  Prophets  have  all  departed,  but  the 
people  survive ;  and  this  survival  during  the  last 
two  thousand  years  must,  according  to  all 
rational  laws  of  history,  be  due  to  the  same 
causes  and  impulses  which  inspired  the  nation 
during  the  thousand  years  before.    If,  then,  the 


POLITICAL    POWER  16 

Jewish  nation  was  created  and  developed,  not  by 
Priests  and  not  by  Prophets,  where  did  the 
source  of  development  lie?  The  answer  is  un- 
mistakable: it  was  in  the  Hebrew  nation  itself. 
To  say  that  a  sojourn  of  seventy  years  in  Baby- 
lonia totally  changed  the  character  of  the  nation, 
and  created  that  deathless  national  life  which  has 
surpassed  in  vigor  all  the  empires  and  kingdoms 
of  that  day,  is  to  give  an  explanation  which  does 
not  explain,  and  which  it  is  not  too  harsh  to 
characterize  as  superficial.  If  merely  rubbing 
shoulders  for  an  instant  of  time  with  Babylonian 
civilization,  transfused  so  much  of  the  spirit  of 
the  latter  into  the  Jewish  nation  that  it  im- 
planted within  its  soul  the  seeds  of  immortality, 
one  wonders  why  the  Babylonians  and  the 
Assyrians,  who  must  have  kept  the  bulk  of  that 
spirit  of  which  a  spark  only  descended  upon 
Israel,  fell  within  a  short  time  thereafter  into 
utter  nothingness.  It  is  for  this  reason,  too,  that 
as  regards  historical  estimates,  the  learned  and 
meritorious  works  which  describe  Israel's  in- 
debtedness to  Babylonian  and  Egyptian  sources, 
cannot  have  controlling  value.  Tools  themselves 
are  inanimate  things ;  behind  their  achievements 
lies  the  spirit  of  the  worker. 

If,  therefore,  it  was  the  spirit  of  Israel  which 
created  Judaism,  historical  science  demands  that 
the  operation  of  that  spirit  prior  to  the  creation 
of  Judaism  be  investigated  and,  if  possible, 
ascertained;  and  if  the  spirit  which  created 
the  religion  of  Judaism  is  thus  of  surpassing 


16  THE  AM   HA-ARETZ 

interest,  it  is  no  more  so  than  the  spirit  which 
created  its  governmental  institutions.  The  his- 
torians point  to  Ezekiel,  to  Ezra  and  to  Nehe- 
miah,  all  children  of  their  people,  in  whose  every 
nerve  and  fiber  its  spirit  was  embedded. 

The  fact  that  the  writing  Prophets  were  long 
preceded  by  a  prophetic  order  or  guild,  which 
had  a  distinct  organization  and  specific  func- 
tions, is  too  frequently  overlooked ;  and  the  still 
more  significant  fact  that  the  only  people  whom 
we  call  Prophets,  namely,  the  great  writing 
Prophets,  either  were  never  members  of  that 
guild,  or  had  severed  their  connection  with  it,  and 
were  denouncing  it  as  pernicious,  by  applying 
to  its  members  the  opprobrious  name  of  **  False 
Prophets."  Like  all  orders  or  guilds,  the  official 
Prophets  constituted  a  grade  of  aristocracy,  and 
revolt  against  this  caste  was  the  revolt  of  the 
democrac3\  The  great  Tribunes  of  the  people 
were  therefore  the  writing  Prophets,  who  de- 
nounced all  the  aristocratic  powers  of  the  state 
as  being  exercised  without  due  regard  to  the 
rights  of  the  mass  of  men  as  men.  If,  then,  in 
Amos  and  Hosea,  in  Isaiah  and  Jeremiah  we 
recognize  the  orators  of  the  people  against  the 
privileged  classes  and  in  favor  of  right  and  jus- 
tice to  all  men,  it  behooves  us  to  re-examine  our 
opinions  on  many  subjects,  and  to  determine 
whether  we  have  not  often  viewed  as  an  indict- 
ment of  all  Israel,  charges  specifically  brought 
by  the  great  Prophets  of  Israel,  on  behalf  of  the 
whole  people  of  Israel,  against  the  ai:istocratic 
classes. 


POLITICAL    POWER  17 

The  task  is  colossal,  but  men  should  be  found 
who  will  address  themselves  to  it  in  the  proper 
spirit.  As  for  myself,  I  propose  to  confine  this 
lecture  to  a  mere  corner  of  the  work. 

In  point  of  time  I  shall  in  the  main  not  go 
further  back  than  the  middle  of  the  ninth  cen- 
tury B.C.,  to  the  days  of  Ahab;  and  I  shall  not 
come  down  later  than  the  time  of  Jeremiah,  say 
two  hundred  and  fifty  years  thereafter.  I  shall 
endeavor  to  demonstrate  that  within  this  period 
there  is  sufficient  evidence  to  warrant  the  opinion 
that  alongside  of  King  and  Priest  and  Prophet, 
there  was  a  great  directive,  if  not  controlling, 
influence  in  the  state,  closely  analogous  to  what 
we  call  Parliament ;  that  this  body  had  executive, 
or  political,  and  high  judicial  powers,  just  as  has 
the  Parliament  of  England.  The  limitation  of 
my  investigation  must,  however,  not  be  miscon- 
strued. On  general  principles  and  from  the 
specific  evidence  obtainable  from  the  Biblical 
books,  it  can  be  shown  that  such  an  institution 
existed  in  embryo  before  the  unification  of  the 
state  under  David ;  that  it  became  fully  developed 
in  the  early  days  of  the  kingdom ;  that  it  never 
ceased  to  exist  until  the  downfall  of  the  mon- 
archy, and  that  in  one  form  or  another  it  was 
preserved  as  an  active  force  in  Babylon  diu'ing 
the  captivity  and  in  Palestine  after  the  return. 
To  attempt  to  work  out  this  subject  completely 
would  require  not  a  lecture,  but  a  book,  and  I 
shall  therefore  confine  myself  this  evening'  to 
the    narrow    field    which    I    have    deliberately 


18  THE   AM    HA-ARETZ 

chosen.  The  institution  described  in  the  Penta- 
teuch as  the  Edah,  and  which  I  have  charac- 
terized as  a  great  national  Council,  is  known  in 
the  period  that  I  am  now  investigating  as  the 
Am  ha-aretz. 

The  term  Am  ha-aretz  has  had  a  chequered 
career.  In  its  origin  it  probably  meant  the 
people  of  a  foreign  land.  Joshua  and  Caleb  use 
it  in  this  sense  in  Numbers  149  in  making  the 
minority  report  of  the  Commission  to  investigate 
the  availabiliy  of  Palestine  for  an  Israelitish 
state.  In  the  course  of  the  thousands  of  years 
since,  it  has  come  to  mean  merely  an  ignorant 
person,  a  boor,  and  Zangwill  has  introduced  this 
phase  of  its  meaning  into  English  literature  in 
the  quaint  form  of  ''man  of  the  earth." 

Between  these  two  extremes,  so  far  apart,  the 
term  has  had  other  meanings,  not  a  few.  The 
student  who  has  a  hankering  to  look  up  the  sub- 
ject may  turn  to  Rothstein^s  Juden  and  Samar- 
itaner  (Leipzig,  1908)  and  Biichler's  Der  Gali- 
Idische  Am  ha-aretz  (Vienna,  1906).  In  these 
learned  works  much  will  be  found  concerning 
the  meaning  of  the  term  after  the  Return  from 
Babylon  and  down  to  the  early  centuries  of  the 
common  era. 

The  term  occurs  forty-nine  times  in  Scrip- 
ture. In  forty-two  of  these  instances  it  means 
neither  the  nation,  nor  a  heretical  section  of  it, 
nor  an  individual  boor,  but  is  simply  a  technical 
term  of  Hebrew  Politics  and  signifies  what  Ive 
would  call  *'the  Parliament." 


POLITICAL   POWER  ■    19 

The  passages  are  the  following : 

Genesis  23|Ii3.i^ 

Leviticus  427  2O2.4. 

2  Kings  lli4.i8.i9.2o  105  I615  2I24.24  2830.35  24i 

^t)3.19-19. 

Jeremiah  lis  34i9  372  442i  526.28.25. 

Ezekiel  I21 12i9  2229  39i3  45i6.22  463.9. 

Job  1224. 

2  Chronicles  23i3.2o.2i  2621  8825.25. 

That  all  the  particular  duties  devolving  on 
this  ancient  Parliament  can  at  this  distance  of 
time  be  clearly  ascertained  is  too  much  to  hope 
for.    That  these  duties  were  partly  political  and 
partly  judicial  is,  however,  clear.    In  speaking 
of  such  an  institution  we  must  be  careful  not  to 
confound  modern  notions  with  ancient  ideas. 
If  we  are  apt  to  believe  that  representation  can 
be  secured  in  but  one  way,  namely,  by  the  ballots 
of  a  portion  of  the  population,  it  by  no  means 
follows  that  the  ancient  Hebrews  took  the  same 
view.     They  had  kings,   princes,   priests  and\i 
nobles,  and  it  is  not  inconceivable  that  individ-|| 
uals  selected  from  among  the  most  important! 
were  looked  upon  as  the  men  proper  to  sit  in  the  1 
Am  ha-aretz. 

The  texts  to  which  I  have  referred  may,  as 
regards  their  content,  be  divided  into  groups  as 
follows:  (\1)  Those  which  represent  the  Am 
ha-aretz  as  exercising  political  functions,  espe- 
cially the  making  and  unmaking  of  kings,  and 
(2)  those  which  represent  it  as  the  High  Court 
of  the  nation. 


20  THE   AM   HA-ARETZ 


THE  AM  HA-ARETZ  OF  THE  HITTITES 

Before  entering  into  the  dry  details  concern- 
ing the  Hebrew  Am  ha-aretz  it  may  be  worth  our 
while  to  look  in  on  a  session  of  the  Am  ha-aretz 
of  another  nation, — one  that  held  sway  in  Pales- 
tine long  before  our  ancestors  took  possession. 
The  great  Hittite  empire  of  the  North  seems  to 
have  had  an  offshoot  in  the  South,  where  a 
Southern  Hittite  League  probably  had  its  capital 
in  the  city  of  Hebron,  in  which  Abraham  long 
sojourned.  From  this  point  he  had  led  the  cam- 
paign against  Kedor-Laomer  the  Elamite  king, 
over  whom  he  and  his  confederate  chiefs  of  the 
Hebron  district  triumphed.  Though  his  rela- 
tions with  the  Hittites  are  of  the  closest  yet  is  he 
an  alien.  He  may  levy  war  with  the  assent  and 
co-operation  of  the  League,  but  he  may  not  own 
land  absolutely.  He  is  looked  on  as  a  mighty 
prince,  as  a  powerful  ally  of  the  Hittite  govern- 
ment, but  not  as  a  member  of  it. 

When  Sarah  died  at  Hebron  it  was  necessary 
to  find  a  fitting  burial-place,  one  that  should  for- 
ever remain  a  possession  of  the  family.  Under 
the  general  law  such  ownership  (aJiuzah,mikneh) 
was  impossible,  without  the  assent  of  the  national 
Parliament,  the  Hittite  Am  ha-aretz.  Its  Pre- 
sident, **  he  who  sits  in  the  middle  "  (Gen.  23io) 
was  Ephron  the  son  of  Zohar.  Its  members  still 
bore  the  ancient  name  of  members  of  a  city  Am 
out  of  which  the  national  Am  had  been  devel- 


POLITICAL   PO^A^ER  21 

oped:  "Comers  to  the  city  gate"  (Gen.  23io.i8), 
a  name  which  survived  the  institution  to  which 
it  originally  belonged. 

To  this  body  Abraham  addresses  himself. 

The  Assembly  is  in  session.  Abraham  is  ad- 
mitted. With  polite  deprecation  he  describes 
his  alienage  and  asks  that  out  of  their  grace  he 
may  be  permitted  to  acquire  a  burying-place 
absolutely.  "They,"  that  is,  the  President,  re- 
l^lies  in  courtly  phrase,  gently  disavowing  the 
term  applied  by  Abraham  to  himself,  avouches 
him  a  mighty  Prince,  and  begs  him  to  make  free 
choice  of  any  of  their  sepulchres. 

Abraham,  who  had  in  the  meanwhile  been 
seated,  bowed  to  the  Am  ha-aretz  and  indirectly 
addressed  Ephron  by  saying  to  the  Assembly: 
"Intreat  for  me  to  Ephron  the  son  of  Zohar,  that 
he  may  for  full  value  grant  me  the  cave  of 
Machpelah. ' ' 

And  then  courteous  diplomatic  fencing. 
Ephron  says:  "Nay,  my  lord,  freely  in  this 
presence  do  I  give  thee  the  field  with  the  cave. 
Bury  thy  dead ! ' '  Abraham  bows  to  the  Am  ha- 
aretz  and  speaks:  "But  hear  me,  as  a  gift  I 
cannot  take  it..  Accept  its  value  that  I  may  bury 
my  dead  therein."  And  then  with  polite  flour- 
ishes Ephron  fixes  the  value  in  money  current 
with  the  merchant,  or  as  we  should  say,  legal 
tender.  To  admit  an  alien  to  this  kind  of  owner- 
ship, it  is  deemed  necessar}^  that  grantor  and 
grantee  appear  before  the  Am  ha-aretz,  that  the 
price  be  fixed,  the  land  minutely  described,  and 


22  THE  AM   HA-ARETZ 

the  consideration  paid,  all  publicly  in  the  hearing 
and  view  of  the  Am  ha-aretz. 

During  the  Jewish  monarchy,  an  ordinary 
sale  of  land  would,  of  course,  have  been  effected 
before  the  city  Am,  **the  Yoshebim  in  the  court 
of  the  prison''  (Jer.  327_i5).  The  case  of  Abra- 
ham, however,  was  something  more  than  a  mere 
local  sale  of  land.  It  was  a  diplomatic  negotia- 
tion between  high  contracting  parties  and  the 
tone  in  which  the  affair  was  conducted  may  serve 
to  give  us  an  idea  of  the  courtly  etiquette  which 
attended  the  reception  of  foreign  ambassadors 
at  Jerusalem  by  the  Am  ha-aretz  in  session. 


THE  DOWNFALL  OF  ATHALIAH 

Our  digression  may  have  prepared  us  the 
better  for  appreciating  the  high  political  func- 
tion of  the  Jewish  Am  ha-aretz  as  king-maker 
and  king-breaker. 

The  classical  example  occurs  at  the  beginning 
of  the  ninth  century  B.C.  The  record  is  in 
2  Kings  11  and  its  doublet  in  2  Chronicles  23. 

Athaliah,  princess  of  Israel,  the  daughter  of 
Ahab  and  Jezebel,  married  Jehoram,  king  of 
Judah.  He  was  succeeded  by  his  youngest  son 
Ahaziah  who,  dying  soon  after,  Athaliah  the 
queen-mother  ascended  the  throne,  having  first 
caused  the  assassination  of  the  surviving  mem- 
bers of  the  Davidic  house  in  Jerusalem.  Only 
the  baby-prince  Joash  was  saved.    Until  the  age 


POLITICAL   POWER  23 

of  seven  he  was  concealed  by  his  uncle  the  high- 
priest  Jehoiada,  and  then  in  881  the  latter  organ- 
ized a  revolt  in  which  Athaliah  lost  her  life,  the 
young  prince  Joash  was  enthroned,  and  Jehoiada 
became  regent. 

The  picture  presented  by  this  narrative  is 
quite  clear.  Athaliah  the  queen-mother  has  es- 
tablished Baal-worship.  A  revolt  is  led  by  the 
priest  Jehoiada,  who  confides  in  and  is  supported 
by  the  military  chiefs  of  Temple  Hill  and  by 
the  Am  ha-aretz.  Their  object  is  to  overthrow 
Athaliah  and  the  Baal-worship,  to  enthrone 
Joash  the  rightful  heir,  and  to  establish  the  wor- 
ship of  the  God  of  Israel. 

A  movement  of  this  character  against  a  pow- 
erful personality  like  Athaliah  calls  for  a  leader 
of  more  than  ordinary  qualities.  Such  a  one 
was  Jehoiada,  the  Priest,  called  also  the  High 
Priest  (2  Kings  12ii ) .  He  had  married  the  prin- 
cess Jehosheba,  the  aunt  of  the  little  prince 
Joash,  and  had  hidden  the  latter  during  the  six 
years  of  Athaliah 's  usurpation.  At  his  death  he 
was  buried  in  the  Tombs  of  the  Kings  (2  Chron. 
24i5.i6),  and  nearly  three  hundred  years  later 
he  was  spoken  of  as  the  primate  and  type  of  the 
Jerusalem  priesthood  (Jer.  2926). 

As  might  have  been  expected  from  such  a 
man,  the  revolution  was  well-planned  and  vigor- 
ously executed.  The  Am  ha-aretz  and  the  garri- 
son were  ready;  the  latter  under  the  leadership 
of  their  captains,  the  former  probably  under  the 
leadership  of  Jehoiada  himself.    While  his  rela- 


24  THE  AM   HA-ARETZ 

tion  to  the  Am  ha-aretz  is  not  directly  indicated, 
there  is  a  significant  remark  in  2  Cliron.  242o 
which  bears  on  the  subject.  There  Ave  are  told 
that  Zechariah  the  son  of  Jehoiada  stood  above 
the  Am  {vaya'amod  me'al  la'am).  If  this  means, 
as  it  probably  does,  that  the  high-priest  or  the 
Cohen  ha-rosh  in  those  days  presided  over  the 
Am,  was  indeed  the  Cohen  of  the  Am,  the  posi- 
tion becomes  clear.  The  Am  by  its  President 
Jehoiada,  and  the  garrison  represented  by  the 
military  commanders,  agreed  to  dethrone  the 
usurper  and  to  enthrone  the  lawful  king. 

The  method  of  procedure  was  agreed  on.  A 
strong  force  was  to  surround  the  little  king  and 
to  defend  the  Temple  enclosure,  and  death  was 
denounced  as  the  penalty  for  any  intrusion  dur- 
ing the  progress  of  the  revolution.  The  prepara- 
tions comj^leted,  the  king  was  crowned  and 
anointed  amid  shouts  of  "God  save  the  king!" 
Athaliah  heard  the  noise  "of  the  guard  and  of 
the  Am,"  came  to  the  Temple,  saw  what  was 
going  on,  saw  the  Am  ha-aretz  rejoicing,  rent  her 
clothes  and  shouted  ' '  Treason,  treason ! ' '  Rush- 
ing to  reach  the  Palace,  she  was  slain  as  soon  as 
she  had  passed  out  of  the  Temple  enclosure. 
Then  Jehoiada  made  a  herith  between  the  Lord, 
the  king  and  the  xVm  ha-aretz ;  the  forces  entered 
the  house  of  Ba'al,  broke  it  down  and  slew  the 
Baal-priest  Mattan,  after  which  Jehoiada  with 
the  military  and  the  Am  ha-aretz  brought  the 
king  down  from  the  Temple  to  the  throne-room 
of  the  Palace  and  enthroned  him.    The  Am  ha- 


POLITICAL   POWER  25 

aretz  rejoiced,  and  "the  city  was  in  quiet" 
(verse  20). 

Dealing  as  we  are  with  Jerusalem,  the  me- 
tropolis, Ave  cannot  avoid  the  difficulty  which 
instantly  presents  itself.  If  Am  ha-aretz  really 
meant  ''the  people  of  the  land"  as  the  authorized 
version  has  it,  how^  is  ^ that  this  great  city  was 
overrun  by  a  mob  of  country-folk,  who  had  not 
only  entered  the  town  by  its  gates,  but  were  prac- 
tically entrenched  within  the  walls  of  its  lofty 
citadel  ?  If,  on  the  other  hand.  Am  ha-aretz,  at 
that  early  date,  nine  centuries  before  the  Com- 
mon Era,  meant  the  city  rabble,  what  is  the 
meaning  of  the  20th  verse  which  tells  us  that  the 
city  remained  quiet  ? 

Either  supposition  is  too  improbable  to  be 
reasonably  entertained.  When  the  Bible  speaks 
of  city  dwellers  it  has  a  distinct  name  for  them, 
anshe  lia'ir  (men  of  the  city).  This  expression 
is  neither  isolated  nor  casual.  It  occurs  in  Gene- 
sis, Joshua,  Judges,  Samuel,  and  Kings.  It  is 
besides  unthinkable,  that  wdth  a  ruler  of  the 
ability  of  Athaliah,  a  mob  whether  of  country  or 
city  folk  could  have  been  gathered  on  Temple 
Hill  without  her  knoAvledge. 

If,  however,  the  Am  ha-aretz  means  the  Great 
Council,  this  difficulty  disappears.  The  presence 
of  the  members  of  this  body  on  Temple  Hill  was 
required  for  the  performance  of  its  functions 
and  therefore  caused  no  alarm. 

To  understand  the  military  dispositions  we 
must  now  study  the  ground. 


^ 


26  THE   AM   HA-ARETZ 

THE  SCENE  OF  THE  REVOLUTION 

If  we  take  Stade's  map  of  Solomon's  Temple 
and  its  surromidings  (Gescliichte,  vol.  1,  p.  315; 
Smith's  Jerusalem,  vol.  2,  p.  59)  and  proceed 
from  North  to  South  we  find  first  at  a  height  of 
2430  feet  above  the  level  of  the  Mediterranean, 
the  Temple  itself,  surrounded  by  courts  and  en- 
closed by  walls.  Southeast  of  it  and  South  of 
the  southern  wall  of  the  Temple  enclosure  was 
a  group  of  buildings  comprising  the  king's  house 
and  attached  to  it  on  the  northwest  the  Palace 
of  Pharaoh's  daughter.  These  stood  on  ground 
10  feet  below  the  Temple  level  and  were  also 
surrounded  by  courts  and  walls.  To  the  south- 
east of  this  group  and  south  of  its  southern  wall 
was  the  Throne  Hall,  on  the  southerly  side  of 
which  rose  the  Hall  of  Pillars.  At  the  north  end 
this  group  was  at  an  elevation  of  2420  feet  and 
sloped  downwards  towards  the  building  imme- 
diately to  the  south,  called  the  House  of  the 
Forest  of  Lebanon,  the  north  end  of  which  was 
at  2410  feet  and  the  south  at  2400  feet.  This 
group  composed  of  the  Throne  Hall,  the  Hall 
of  Pillars  and  the  House  of  the  Forest  was  sur- 
rounded by  a  great  court  enclosed  by  walls. 
From  the  south  there  was  an  ascent  which  per- 
mitted entry  into  this  court  by  a  gate  in  the  south 
wall.  From  this  court  there  was  on  the  east  a 
way  up  to  the  Temple  Court  through  a  gate  at 
the  eastern  end  of  the  south  wall  of  the  Temple 
enclosure.    Stade  and  Smith  give  us  no  clear  con- 


PLAN  OF  BUILDINGS  ON  TEMPLE  HILL  IN  ATHALIAH'S  TIME 

( following  Stade  and  G.  A.  Smith) 


Scale   or  Yards 


a  The  House  of  ihe  Forest  of  Lebanon    m  Altar  of  Burnt  Offering 


b  Threshold 

c  Hall  of  Pillars 

d  The  Throne  Hall 

e  The  "  Great"  or  Outer  Court 

f  The  King's  House 
g  The  "Other"  or  "Middle"  Court 
h  House  of  Pharaoh's  Daughter 

1  The  Temple 


n  The  Upper  Court  or  C.  of  the  House  of  Yahweh 
pp  Ascents  to  Palace  and  Temple 
r  W^all  of  present  Haram-esh-Sherif 
s  Barracks  of  the  Ratzim 
t  Beth  ba-Am  (Parliament  House) 
V  Gate  Sur 
X  Palace  Gate 
z  Ratzim  or  Barracks  Gate 


POLITICAL   POWER  27 

ception  of  the  situation  as  it  was  at  the  time  of 
Athaliah's  overthrow.  The  account  as  given 
in  2  Kings  11,  must  be  used  to  supplement  their 
account.  In  the  first  place  there  were  three  gates 
in  the  south  wall  of  the  Temple  enclosure:  the 
gate>S'«*r  (v.  6),  the  gate  of  the  guards  (Ratzim) 
V.  6),  and  the  palace  gate  (v.  16).  If  we  assume, 
as  probably  we  must,  that  the  gate  of  the  guards 
was  at  the  eastern  end  of  the  southern  wall  of 
the  Temple  enclosure,  while  the  gate  of  Sur  was 
at  its  western  end,  it  would  reasonably  follow 
that  the  royal  gate  was  at  or  about  the  middle, 
which  is  where  we  would  expect  it  to  be,  since 
Athaliah  chose  it  for  escape  in  her  peril  and 
would  of  course  choose  the  shortest  way  from  the 
Temple  to  the  Palace.  Two  points  still  require 
elucidation.  As  we  find  soldiers  on  Temple  Hill 
there  must  have  been  barracks  for  them  some- 
where. These  barracks  are  implied  in  the  ex- 
pression ''the  gate  behind  the  Ratzim'^  (v.  6), 
meaning  of  course  "behind  the  quarters  of  the 
Ratzim/^  Whether  the  Kari  are  another  kind 
of  soldiers  than  the  Ratzim,  need  not  be  exam- 
ined here.  Assuming  all  the  soldiers  of  the 
Temple  Hill  to  have  had  one  building  for  bar- 
racks, the  probability  is  that  this  building  stood 
in  the  outer  court  at  the  southeast  end  thereof 
immediately  covering  the  Gate  of  the  Guards, 
which,  according  to  the  text,  is  "behind"  the 
barracks. 

Keeping  the  situation  in  mind  we  find  that 
the  real  understanding  of  the  narrative  is  impos- 


28  THE   AM   HA-ARETZ 

sible  unless  we  assign  tlieir  true  meaning  to  the 
words,  (1)  Am  ha-aretz,  (2)  sabbath  (vv.  5,  7, 
9),  and  (3)  Beth-Massach  (v.  6).  The  first  is  of 
course  the  parliament.  The  word  sabbath,  which 
seems  so  easy  that  no  one  has  had  any  doubts 
about  it,  gives  no  meaning  at  all  if  we  understand 
it  to  be  the  weekly  Sabbath-day.  That  its  sig- 
nification is  ''rest"  we  all  know,  but  then  a  man 
may  rest  on  a  week-day  as  well  as  on  Saturday. 
And  yet  the  translators  speak  of  them  "that  enter 
in  on  the  Sabbath"  and  of  them  "that  go  forth  on 
the  Sabbath." 

Viewing  Sabbath  as  the  seventh  day  what 
idea  do  we  get?  Surely  not  one  of  sanctified 
rest,  because  some  of  the  soldiers  ' '  enter  in ' '  and 
others  "go  forth"  on  that  day,  processes  which 
both  bespeak  unsabbatical  activity. 

The  difficulty  is  that  a  soldier's  account  of 
military  doings  has  been  read  with  the  eyes  of 
ecclesiastics.  The  Avord  shabbath  in  the  narra- 
tive does  not  refer  to  the  seventh  day,  but  to  the 
practice  of  relieving  guard.  The  extraordinary 
events  which  were  happening  on  Temple  Hill 
required  the  active  service  of  every  soldier  on 
the  Hill,  and  the  order  was  given  that  there 
should  be  no  relief  on  the  day  in  question,  but 
that  every  man  should  remain  on  duty. 

A  soldier  cannot  keep  awake  twentj^-four 
hours  in  the  day,  nor  stand  guard  all  his  waking 
hours ;  a  roimd  Qf  duty  must  be  assigned  to  him 
which  will  not  overtax  his  powers.  If,  for  in- 
stance, the  Temple  Guards  were  ordinarily  re- 


POLITICAL   POWER  29 

quired  to  be  on  active  duty  eight  hours  out  of 
the  twenty-four,  then  it  would  follow  that  at  each 
turn  of  duty  one-third  of  their  number  would 
be  relieved,  that  is,  become  bae  ha-shabbath, 
** comers  into  rest,"  while  another  third  would 
become  yotzee  ha-shabbath,  ''goers  out  of  rest," 
that  is,  the  relieving  squad.  The  third  third 
would  in  that  event  have  remained  in  barracks, 
or  enjoyed  other  recreation. 

On  this  hypothesis  what  happened  was  as 
follows : 

The  third  part,  being  the  relieved  guard,  were 
on  this  occasion  not  allowed  to  enter  the  barracks 
but  were  divided  into  three  detachments,  the  first 
of  which  was  to  watch  the  Palace  (v.  5),  the 
second  to  be  at  the  gate  of  Sur,  and  the  third  to 
be  at  the  gate  behind  the  barracks  (v.  6).  This 
disposition  was  intended  to  protect  the  barracks 
(beth  massach)  (v.  6). 

The  danger  to  the  barracks  against  which 
protection  w^as  needed  could  only  have  been  of 
one  kind,  namely,  an  apprehended  attack  by  the 
Royal  Guards  (Gibborim).  It  is  true  that  the 
narrative  does  not  distinctly  mention  the  Royal 
Guards,  but  there  are  a  few  hints  of  value. 
When  Athaliah  rushed  to  the  Palace  it  was  prob- 
ably for  the  purpose  of  ordering  out  her  guards 
to  crush  the  revolution.  The  stern  order  to  kill 
her  was  intended  to  prevent  this.  If  the  Beth- 
massach  was,  as  we  apprehend,  at  the  southeast 
end  of  the  Temple  Court,  then  the  gate  imme- 
diately south  of  it  must  have  been  at  the  north 
3 


30  THE   AM   HA-ARETZ 

end  of  the  road  which  led  from  the  barracks  of 
the  Royal  Guards  to  the  barracks  of  the  Temple 
Guards.  Given  these  data  Ave  understand  the 
orders  that  were  given.  The  prime  command 
was  to  2)rotect  the  Beth-massach,  that  is,  to  pre- 
vent the  Royal  Guards  from  breaking  through 
the  gate  and  getting  a  foothold  on  the  Temple 
Grounds.  The  details  of  the  order  were  that  a 
third  of  the  relieved  squad  was  to  hold  the 
barracks  gate.  Another  third  was  to  hold  the 
western  gate  (Sur)  which  was  probably  a  public 
gate  for  all  visitors  to  the  Temple.  The  third 
third  was  to  watch  the  Palace.  Where  this  third 
was  stationed  we  are  not  told  except  negatively, 
namely,  they  were  not  assigned  to  the  royal  gate 
which  would  have  been  the  most  natural  position. 
The  reason  for  this  disposition  is  obvious 
enough.  Athaliah  was  to  be  lured  into  the 
Temple  Grounds,  and  if  the  guards  had  been  at 
the  gate  she  would  have  called  out  her  guards 
and  prepared  for  battle.  We  may  therefore 
infer  that  the  detachment  assigned  to  watch  the 
Palace  remained  on  observation,  or  in  some  con- 
venient covert  near  by,  ready  to  move  at  a 
moment's  notice. 

These  dispositions  referred  only  to  one-third 
of  the  Temple  guards.  The  other  two-thirds 
(shete  ha-yadoth) ,  all.went  forth  out  of  Sabbath, 
that  is,  were  on  duty  (verse  7).  They  were 
specially  assigned  to  guard  the  Temple  and  the 
little  king  (Ibid.). 

Something  must  now  be  said  to  vindicate  the 


POLITICAL    POWER  31 

translation  of  massacli  by  the  rendering  *' bar- 
racks. ' '  The  authorized  version  makes  the  word 
massach  an  adverb  qualifying  the  manner  or 
effect  of  the  watch  kept  by  the  guards.  This 
word  in  that  sense  is  superfluous,  since  all  guard 
duty  is  intended  for  protection  and  not  for  dis- 
comfiture. 

In  support  of  our  hypothesis  that  the  Beth 
Massach  is  the  guards'  house,  the  barracks,  there 
are  two  facts.  In  2  Kings  16 is  we  are  informed 
that  Tiglath-Pileser,  king  of  Assyria,  having 
reduced  King  Ahaz  of  Judah  to  vassalage,  exer- 
cised authority  on  Temple  Hill  in  Jerusalem,  not 
only  by  changing  the  pattern  of  the  great  altar, 
but  by  changing  or  somehow  neutralizing  the 
musach  ha-shahhath  which  had  been  built  ''in 
the  Temple"  (in  the  Temple  enclosure). 

This  word  musach  (variant  in  form  from  our 
massach),  denotes  a  building  called  musach  ha- 
shabhath  or  rest-ynusach,  an  expression  which 
seems  to  identify  it  with  the  massacli  of  chapter 
11,  as  the  place  of  shahhaflt  or  rest  for  the  troops. 

There  is  still  another  instance  of  a  similar 
word  which  appears  to  have  a  closely  related 
meaning.  In  the  22d  chapter  of  Isaiah  an  attack 
on  Jerusalem  is  foretold.  In  verse  8  the  masach 
of  Judah  (its  shield),  is  uncovered  and  a 
struggle  to  save  the  day  must  be  made  in  the 
house  of  the  forest. 

The  parallelism  between  the  masach  and  the 
heth  ha  ya'ar  is  unmistakable,  and  establishes 
either  the  identity  of  the  two  or  their  nearness 
to  each  other  in  purpose  and  place. 


32  THE   AM   HA-ARETZ 

A  glance  at  the  situation  of  the  house  of  the 
forest  of  Lebanon  shows  that  it  stood  in  the 
proper  place  to  resist  an  attack  from  the  south 
and  that  it  was  looked  on  as  a  fortress  which 
protected  the  Palace  and  the  Temple.  Indeed 
1  Kings  10 17  expressly  says  that  it  was  used  as 
an  armory. 

Athaliah  was  not  slain  in  the  Temple  Court 
because  of  an  old  law  (Ki  amar  ha-Cohen)  :  Al 
tamutli  beth  Jlivh,  Thou  slialt  not  kill  in  the 
Temple  (2  Kings  llis).  But  the  order  had  been 
given  to  follow  and  to  kill  her  as  soon  as  she  had 
passed  out  of  the  court  (ibid.).  She  passed 
through  the  middle  gate  on  to  the  driveway  be- 
tween the  wall  and  the  Palace  and  was  slain 
before  reaching  the  Palace. 

Then  Jehoiada  and  the  Am  ha-aretz  accom- 
panied by  the  soldiery  brought  the  king  to  the 
Palace  and  there  enthroned  him. 

We  have  thus  a  clear  account  of  the  Am  ha- 
aretz  as  a  body  of  men  who  claimed  and  exercised 
the  power  of  making  and  unmaking  a  king  in 
Israel.  If  this  were  an  isolated  instance  of  such 
activity  the  incident  would  be  relatively  insig- 
nificant, would  be  merely  a  revolutionary  move- 
ment and  would  have  little  bearing  on  the  consti- 
tutional law  of  the  Hebrews.  The  case,  however, 
is  far  otherwise. 

E 

THE  AM  HA-ARETZ  AND  THE  LATER  KINGS 

On  the  death  of  Amaziah  the  Am  of  Judah 
took  Azariah  (Uzziah)  his  son  and  made  him 


POLITICAL   POW^ER  33 

king  to  succeed  his  father  (2  Kings  142i).  When 
Azariah  became  a  leper,  Jotham  his  son  was  over 
the  house  (Shophet  of  the  Am  ha-aretz)  (2 
Kings  155 )  and  when  Azariah  died  Jotham  his 
son  reigned  in  his  stead  (2  Kings  ISt). 

Amon's  ministers  (abadav)  conspired  against 
him  and  slew  the  king  in  his  Palace,  whereupon 
the  Am  ha-aretz  slew  the  conspirators  and  made 
his  son  Josiah  king  in  his  stead  (2  Kings  2I23.24). 

When  Josiah  died  on  the  field  of  Megiddo,  the 
Am  ha-aretz  took  Jehoahaz  his  son,  anointed 
him  and  made  him  king  in  his  father's  stead 
(2  Kings  23ao).  Pharaoh  Nechoh  within  three 
months  put  an  end  to  his  reign  and  installed  his 
brother  Eliakim  (renamed  Jehoiakim)  in  his 
place.  The  latter  exacted  a  tribute  of  silver  and 
gold  from  the  Am  ha-aretz  to  give  it  to  Pharaoh 
CN  (2  Kings  2835).  ^^f^^^  /W-^^t^^^-^^- 

^  In  tlia-£ighth-yijar  uf-the^reign  of  Jchoiachin  ^^ 

his  son  and  successor,  Babylon,  which  clauned  ''^ 
Judah  as  its  vassal,  laid  siege  to  Jerusalem  and 
Nebuchadnezzar  captured  the  king,  the  royal 
family  and  the  royal  retinue,  and  also  carried 
away  the  treasures  of  the  Temple  and  the  Palace. 
Of  the  Am  ha-aretz  only  the  poorer  sort  (dalath) 
were  not  carried  oif  (2  Kings  24i4),  while  the 
big  men  (Elim)  of  the  Aretz  shared  the  king's 
captivity  (24i5)-         •  /i 

Nebuchadnezzar  then  placed  on  the  throne 
Jchoiachin 's  uncle  Mattaniah  (renamed  Zede- 
kiah).  In  the  ninth  year  of  his  reign,  his  turn 
came   and   Jerusalem   was   again   besieged   by 


34  THE  AM   HA-ARETZ 

Babylon,  the  siege  lasting  two  years.  On  tlie 
ninth  day  of  the  fonrth  month  the  famine  pre- 
vailed in  the  city  and  there  was  no  bread  even  for 
the  Am  ha-aretz  (2  Kings  25:}).  The  garrison 
fled,  the  king  was  captnred,  his  troops  scattered 
and  he  himself  blinded  and  carried  to  Babylon. 

The  Babylonian  general  Nebuzaradan  burnt 
the  Temple  and  the  parliament  house  (Beth 
ha-am)  and  broke  down  the  city  walls  (Jer.  398 ). 
Among  others  he  captui'ed  the  Sar  ha-tzabah,  the 
Grand  Marshal  of  the  Am  ha-aretz,  and  sixty 
members  of  the  Am  ha-aretz  who  had  remained 
in  the  city  (2  Kings  25i9)  and  took  them  to 
Ri])lah  where  they  were,  b.y  order  of  Nebuchad- 
nezzar, slain. 

On  the  downfall  of  the  monarchy,  the  king  of 
Babylon  appears  to  have  intended  to  give  Judea 
a  more  pojDular  form  of  government.  Having 
made  way  with  the  Elim  or  magnates  of  the 
Am  ha-aretz,  he  invested  the  Dallim  (the  poor 
members)  with  the  powers  of  that  body  and  gave  ^\ 
them  vineyards  and  fields  (which  doubtless  had— -^"^^^ 
belonged  to  the  patrician  sectioii)  Jer.  39io'^:^^iLe 
installed  Gedaliah  as  viceroy  (2  Kings  2622),  but 
the  latter  was  soon  slain  by  the  court  party  under 
the  leadership  of  Ishmael  "of  the  seed  royal" 

(2525). 

In  the  meanwhile  the  conqueror  had  freed 
Jeremiah,  placed  him  under  the  protection  of 
Gedaliah  and  selected  him  for  President  of  the 
newly  organized  Am  (Vayesheb  betoch  ha 'am) 
(Jer' 39.4  4O5.6). 


POLITICAL   POWER  35 

With  the  death  of  Gedaliah  came  the  ill- 
starred  flight  into  Egypt  whither  Jeremiah  him- 
self was  carried,  and  the  hope  of  restoring  the 
Davidic  dynasty  dwindled. 

The  mass  of  evidence  here  collated  compels 
the  abandonment  of  the  notion  that  the  Am  ha- 
aretz  were  merely  the  rabble.  Their  proceed- 
ings from  the  time  that  Jehoiada  led  them  into 
revolt  against  Athaliah  have  not  the  faintest  re- 
semblance to  the  proceedings  of  a  mob;  while 
they  are  quite  consistent  with  the  sagacious 
action  of  a  great  national  Council,  which  had  its 
meeting  place  (Beth  ha- 'am),  on  Temple  Hill, 
and  which  was  in  regular  and  orderly  session  at 
the  time.  Otherwise,  the  ascent  of  the  hill  by  dis- 
orderly and  unexpected  crowds  would  have  inev- 
itably attracted  the  attention  of  Athaliah,  her 
courtiers,  servants,  and  soldiers.  Moreover,  we 
are  expressly  told  that  when  all  the  proceedings 
became  known,  the  city  (i.e.,  the  bulk  of  the  pop- 
ulation) remained  quiet.  Then  we  must  addi- 
tionally take  into  account  the  repeated  instances 
subsequently  recorded  in  which  the  Am  ha-aretz 
elected  a  king.  That  it  was  not  the  rabble  who 
did  this  is  evident  from  the  fact  that  Pharaoh 
Nechoh  exacted  a  tribute  of  silver  and  gold  from 
the  Am  ha-aretz;  that  Nebuchadnezzar  carried 
off  a  section  of  the  Am  ha-aretz  to  share  Jehoia- 
^y/iiy^  kim-'s  captivity  at  Babylon;  that  at  the  final 
catastrophe  great  officers  of  the  Am  ha-aretz  and 
sixty  members  of  it  were  seized  and  sentenced  to 
death;  and  last,  but  not  least,  that  the  Parlia- 


36  THE   AM   HA-ARETZ" 

ment  house  itself  was  destroyed.    Where  there  is 
a  Parliament  house  there  is  also  a  Parliament. 

It  is  true  that  the  words  Beth  ha-Am  have 
heretofore  not  been  so  translated,  but  then  on  the 
other  hand  it  is  equally  true  that  no  intelligible 
meaning  has  ever  been  assigned  to  them. 


THE  AM  HA-ARETZ  ELECTS  SAUL 

As  a  mere  illustration  of  the  antiquity  of  this 
power  of  a  national  Council  to  elect  a  king,  I 
digress  a  little  i^rom  my  original  purpose,  in 
order  to  call  to  your  minds  the  circumstances  of 
the  election  of  the  very  first  king  in  Israel — Saul. 

Samuel  spoke  to  Saul  of  Israel's  desire  to 
have  a  king  and  of  the  fact  that  he  Avas  the  favor- 
ite; whereupon  he  took  Saul  with  his  servant, 
brought  them  into  the  meeting-hall  (Lishcah) 
and  assigned  them  places  in  the  Assembly  of  the 
delegates  (Rosh  ha-Keruim)  who  were  thirty  in 
number.  And  Samuel  said  to  the  Master  of 
Ceremonies  (Tabbach)  : 

''Bring  out  the  portion  which  I  gave  thee : 
Of  which  I  said  unto  thee : 
Set  it  by  thee!" 

And  the  Tabbach  raised  the  shoulder  and 
lifted  it  up  and  set  it  before  Saul,  saying  these 
words : 

"Behold  the  nishar  (what  is  left),  set  it 
before  thee,  eat!    For  to  this  Assembly  (mo'ed) 


POLITICAL   PO\VER  ^7 

hath  it  been  kept  for  thee  since  ttRHitty  it  was 
opened,  by  the  Avords  Ha 'am  Karathi  (I  have 
convoked  the  Am)"  (1  Sam.  922-24). 

And  Samuel  said  to  the  Am:  Behold  hun 
whom  the  Lord  hath  chosen,  for  there  is  none 
like  him  in  the  whole  Am.  And  the  whole  Am 
shouted  "God  save  the  king!"  Then  Samuel 
told  the  Am  the  laAv  (mishpat)  of  royalty  and 
wrote  it  in  a  book,  and  laid  it  up  before  the  Lord. 

And  Samuel  dismissed  the  Am  each  to  his 
home  (1  Sam.  IO24.25). 

A  superficial  reading  of  the  authorized  ver- 
sion conveys  the  impression  that  Samuel  gave  a 
dinner  to  which  he  invited  thirty  guests  and  Said 
with  his  servant  having  casually  arrived,  the 
prophet  hospitably  invited  him  to  share  in  the 
festivity. 

Our  interpretation  is  in  direct  opposition  to 
this  view.  Samuel  having  been  divinely  in- 
structed that  Saul  was  the  proper  man  for  king, 
convoked  a  meeting  of  the  Am  so  that  in  their 
presence  the  Divine  choice  might  be  made  known. 
He  relied  on  the  interposition  of  Heaven  to  send 
the  young  man  to  the  city  on  the  day  appointed 
for  the  Assembly. 

The  variance  between  the  two  interpretations 
is  produced  by  the  differing  translation  of  five 
words  in  the  narrative :  I-iishcah,  Rosh,  Keruim, 
Tabbach  and  ha- Am. 

Lishcah  means  a  public  hall  for  official  meet- 
ings in  the  35th  chapter  of  Jeremiah,  where  the 
historv  is  recited  that  in  the  Lishcah  of  the 


38  THE   AM   HA-ARETZ 

Beii'e-Hanan,  which  adjoined  the  Lishcah  of  the 
princes  (Sarim),  a  numerously  attended  confer- 
ence between  a  representative  delegation  of  the 
Rechabites  and  a  committee  of  the  national 
Assembly  was  held. 

The  object  of  the  conference  was  to  induce 
these  nomads  to  take  up  a  settled,  agricultural 
life.  The  Rechabites,  however,  sturdily  refused 
to  abandon  their  Bedouin  customs.  The  national 
Assembly  was  incensed  at  this  reluctance  to 
accept  liberal  offers  advantageous  as  well  to  the 
kingdom  as  to  the  tribesmen. 

Jeremiah  is  commissioned  to  rebuke  the 
Assembly  (ish  Yehudah,  yoshhebe  Yerushala- 
yim)  for  their  insistence,  and  to  communicate  to 
the  tribesmen  the  Divine  approval  of  their  stead- 
fastness to  the  customs  of  the  fathers. 

Another  instance  of  this  use  of  Lishcah  is 
found  in  the  36th  chapter  of  Jeremiah. 

The  prophet,  being  imprisoned,  deputes 
Baruch  to  read  his  written  message  in  the  ears 
of  the  Am  in  the  Temple,  on  Convocation  day 
(Beyom  tzom),  in  the  ears  of  Judah,  comers 
(Baim)  from  their  cities.  Accordingly  Baruch 
reads  it  in  the  Temple  in  the  Lishcah  of  Gema- 
riah  in  the  hearing  of  the  whole  Am. 

Word  is  immediately  sent  to  the  princes 
(Sarim)  who  were  in  session  in  the  Lishcah  of 
the  Scribe. 

And  in  later  times  the  Sanhedrin  met  in  the 
Lishcah  or  Hall  of  Hewn  Stone  (Mishnah  Mid- 
doth  54;  Palestinian  Talmud  Sanhedrin  I,  19c). 


POLITICAL   POWER  39 

The  rendering  of  Lislicali  by  "parlor"  in  our 
passage  is  therefore  not  necessarily  correct,  and 
as  the  rendering  ''meeting-hall"  gives  a  more 
intelligible  meaning  it  ought  to  be  accei)ted. 

As  to  the  word  Rosh,  doubtless  in  most  in- 
stances it  means  "head."  That  fact,  however, 
does  not  exclude  other  meanings.  If  we  look  at 
Murray's  Dictionary  for  the  meaning  of  the 
English  word  "head"  there  will  be  found  more 
than  forty  significations.  While  on  the  one  hand 
it  means  the  upper  part  of  the  bod}^,  on  the  other 
it  is  used  for  the  collection  of  foam  or  froth  on 
beer,  for  the  source  of  a  river,  for  a  chief  point 
of  a  discourse  and  finally  for  a  body  of  people 
gathered. 

So  in  the  Hebrew  Dictionary  we  find  that 
besides  the  meaning  "head,"  Bosh  is  defined  as 
heginning  (of  a  time)  ;  as  choicest  in  quality;  as 
the  sum  of  a  communit}^,  and  finally  as  a  com- 
pany or  band.  Saul  divided  his  men  into  three 
companies  (rashim)  (1  Sam.  lln)  ;  so  did  the 
Philistines  (1  Sam.  ISjt.is). 

The  Hebrew  language  while  it  was  living,  in 
Biblical  times,  like  all  other  tongues  must  have 
assigned  various  meanings  to  one  and  the  same 
word. 

Bosh  in  this  instance  means  session  or  assem- 
bly of  the  Kcriiim,  the  Great  Council  sitting  for 
political  or  for  judicial  business. 

The  Keruim  are  not  invited  guests  to  a  pri- 
vate feast  as  the  authorized  version  reads,  but 
are  the  delegates  to  the  Assembly.    In  Numbers 


40  THE  AM   HA-ARETZ 

lie  and  269  they  are  called  Keriiim  of  the  Edah 
and  in  Nimibers  I62  Keruim  of  the  Mo'ed. 

In  1  Sam.  924  the  occasion  is  expressly  called 
the  ^loed  and  therefore  the  Keruim  are  the  dele- 
gates to  the  Moed  just  as  in  Numbers  I62. 

The  Tabbach  is  not  simply  the  cook,  as  the 
authorized  version  has  it.  The  word  in  this  form 
occurs  only  in  this  narrative,  but  his  acts  show 
that  he  is  more  than  a  cook — is  in  fact  a  high 
official  performing  his  functions  with  scrupulous 
adherence  to  the  ceremonial  ritual.  The  related 
titles  Sar  ha-tabbachim  and  Rab  tabbachim  are 
those  of  exalted  officials  at  the  court  of  Pharaoh 
(Gen.  4O3)  and  of  Nebuchadnezzar  (Jer.  SOg). 

At  the  simpler  court  of  the  Shophet  Samuel, 
the  Tabbach  must  equally  have  been  a  man  of 
dignity  and  authority. 

Ha-Am  of  course  means  the  same  as  Ha- 
Keruim.  With  these  definitions  in  mind  the 
story  assumes  a  form  pregnant  with  meaning. 

922.  And  Samuel  took  Saul  and  his  servant, 
brought  them  into  the  hall  and  seated  them  in 
the  Assembly  of  the  Delegates,  who  were  about 
thii'ty  in  number. 

Right  here  the  Septuagint  furnishes  a  sig- 
nificant variant.  Instead  of  the  word  thirty  the 
Greek  translation  has  seventy,  the  exact  mmiber 
of  the  Zekenim. 

923.  And  Samuel  said  to  the  Tabbach,  Bring 
the  manah  (portion)  which  I  gave  thee  saying: 
Set  it  by  thee. 

924.  And  the  Tabbach  raised  the  shoulder 


POLITICAL   POWER  41 

(sJiok)  and  lifted  it  up  and  set  it  before  Saul 
with  certain  ceremonial  words. 

Whether  the  word  shok  means  "shoulder"  as 
the  authorized  version  has  it  or  ''thigh"  as  the 
revised  version  puts  it,  is  immaterial  for  our  dis- 
cussion. It  is  important,  however,  to  determine 
whether  the  shok  has  a  ceremonial  value  and 
what  that  value  is  as  also  its  relation  to  the 
manah  (portion). 

At  the  consecration  of  Aaron  and  his  sons, 
the  breast  of  the  ram  was  a  wave-offering  and 
was  his  manah.  The  breast  and  the  shok  shall 
be  Aaron's  and  his  sons  forever  (Exod. 2921.26.27). 

The  right  shok  shall  ye  give  unto  the  priest 
for  a  Terumah  *  *  *;  it  is  his  manah  forever 
(Lev.  732.33.34). 

The  shok  as  the  manah  is  therefore  a  symbol 
of  the  greatest  ceremonial  importance.  It  was 
used  at  the  Consecration  of  Aaron  and  his  sons 
and  when  employed  on  other  occasions  we  may 
fairly  infer  that  the  purpose  of  such  use  was 
consecrative. 

Assuming  this  to  be  so  we  have  before  us 
ancient  forms  of  the  greatest  interest. 

When  Samuel  sets  apart  the  Shok  as  the 
Manah  of  the  future  king  he  says  to  the  Tabbach : 
Sim  othah  'imach,  set  it  by  thee.  This  occurred 
not  at  the  moment  of  Saul's  election  but  earlier 
on  the  same  day. 

At  the  Zebach  of  the  Am  on  the  Bamah 
(1  Sam  9i2)the  manali  must  have  been  reserved 
by  him  publicly,  in  the  ceremonial  fashion  de- 
scribed. 


42  THE  AM   HA-ARETZ 

Observe  now  how  the  Tabbach  acts  (verse 
24).  He  raised  (vayarem)  the  shok;  he'aleha 
(lifted  it  up)  and  set  it  before  Saul. 

Samuel  then  takes  up  the  ritual : 

Behold  that  which  is  left!  (nishar) 

Set  it  before  thee  and  eat ! 

For  unto  the  Mo  'ed  hath  it  been  kept  for  thee, 

Since  I  said  Ha- Am  Karathi. 

The  point  of  time  at  which  Samuel  had  said 
Ha  Am  Karathi  (the  Assembly  is  convened)  was 
at  the  opening  of  the  session,  when  the  sacrifice 
or  Zebach  had  been  offered.  This  is  perhaps  the 
most  ancient  bit  of  parliamentary  ritual  in  the 
literature  of  the  world,  a  rare  nishar  (survival). 

These  ceremonies  on  the  Bamah  constituted 
the  announcement  in  the  presence  of  the  Council 
that  God  had  chosen  Saul.  This  was  in  strict 
conformity  with  the  Constitution  (Deut.  ITis). 
This  mere  announcement,  however,  was  not  suffi- 
cient. It  still  devolved  on  the  Am  to  elect  the 
king  (Som  tasim  'alecha  melech)  (Ibid.). 
Accordingly  Samuel  convoked  the  Am  to  meet  at 
Mizpeh  (1  Sam.  IO17).  There  he  said  to  them: 
Look  upon  him  .whom  the  Lord  hath  chosen. 
And  the  Am  shouted :  God  save  the  king !  (IO24) . 
Then  he  wrote  in  a  book  the  Mishpat  hameluchah 
(the  Royalty  La\yQ  and  laid  it  up  before  the 
U  Lord.    Whereupon  the  Am  adjourned  (IO25). 

It  may  be  of  interest  in  j)assing  to  refer  to 
the  Talmud's  traditions. 

As  regards  the  functions  of  the  great  Sanhe- 


POLITICAL   POWER  48 

drin,  the  Palestinian  Talmud  (Sanhedrin,  Perek 
2,  Hal.  5)  tells  us  that  no  other  tribunal  could 
try  a  whole  tribe,  or  a  whole  city,  or  a  false 
prophet,  that  without  its  assent  the  king  could 
not  declare  war,  nor  could  the  bounds  of  Jeru- 
salem be  enlarged,  nor  an  annex  be  added  to  the 
Temple.  The  great  Sanhedrin  alone  had  the 
right  to  install  the  minor  Sanhedrins  of  23. 

And  in  Sanhedrin,  Perek  I,  Hal.  4,  the  same 
authority  tells  us  that  the  members  of  the  San- 
hedrin  sat  in  a  semi-circle  and  that  the  Nasi  sat 
in  the  middle  so  that  they  could, look  at  each 
other. 


II 

JUDICIAL  POWER 


THE  TRIAL  OF  JEREMIAH 

Having,  as  we  think,  made  good  the  claim  of 
the  Am  ha-aretz  to  a  high  place  in  the  political 
government  of  the  country,  it  becomes  necessary 
to  show  that  the  great  judicial  powers  predicated 
of  the  Edah  in  the  Pentateuch  were  possessed 
and  exercised  by  the  Am  ha-aretz.  For  this  pur- 
pose the  first  example  to  be  cited  is  the  trial  of 
Jeremiah  by  the  Am  ha-aretz,  in  which  trial  the 
Sarim,  as  a  co-ordinate  or  constituent  element 
of  the  Am  ha-aretz,  participated. 

Jeremiah  was  one  of  the  greatest  men  in  our 
history.  From  the  Gospel  of  Matthew  we  learn 
(I614)  that  among  the  people  of  Cesarea  Philippi 
there  was  a  wide-spread  opinion  that  Jesus  was 
either  Elijah,  Jeremiah  or  one  of  the  prophets, 
newly  risen  to  herald  the  advent  of  the  Messiah. 
The  coupling  of  Jeremiah's  name  with  Elijah's 
indicates  the  high  rank  that  popular  belief  had 
assigned  him. 

Haggadic  literature  associates  in  like  manner 
the  names  of  Moses  and  Jeremiah,  a  sure  sign  of 
the  exalted  place  he  held  in  men's  opinion. 

Originally  a  member  of  the  priestly  and  the 
prophetic  Guilds  he  came  soon  to  look  upon  both 


JUDICIAL   POWER  46 

as  falling  short  in  the  great  work  confided  to 
them,  and  thus  it  is  that  one  of  the  greatest  sons 
of  both  classes  uttered  the  most  eloquent  denun- 
ciations of  their  official  representatives.  Born 
in  650  B.C.  his  public  career  began  while  yet  a 
young  man  and  from  the  thirteenth  year  of  King 
Josiah  (626  B.C.)  to  the  conquest  of  Jerusalem 
(586  B.C.)  and  still  later,  he  was  perhaps  the 
most  distinguished  figure  in  the  Judean  kingdom. 

His  activity  was  exercised  during  the  reigns 
of  Josiah  (659-608),  Jehoiakim  (608-597),  and 
Zedekiah  (597-586),  and  continued  after  the 
downfall  of  the  latter. 

It  was  in  the  beginning  of  Jehoiakim 's  reign 
that  Jeremiah  stood  in  the  Temple  Court  and 
spoke  to  *'all  the  cities  of  Judah  in  the  hearing 
of  the  priests  and  the  prophets ' '  the  Divine  mes- 
sage :  "If  ye  will  not  hearken  to  me,  to  walk  in 
my  law,  to  heed  the  words  of  my  servants  the 
prophets,  then  will  I  make  this  house  like  Shiloh, 
and  this  city  a  curse  to  all  the  nations  of  the 
earth"  (Jer.26y.^). 

The  speech  must  have  been  a  passionate 
appeal  to  the  Am  for  definite  action  on  a  burning 
question.  Moreover,  it  must  have  been  publicly 
announced  beforehand  that  the  priests  and  the 
prophets  would  be  arraigned  for  shortcomings. 
They  appeared  in  force  ready  to  take  advantage 
of  one  whom  they  looked  upon  as  their  enemy 
and  the  enemy  of  the  State. 

When  he  had  spoken  the  fateful  words,  they 
shouted,  as  with  one  accord :  ' '  Thou  must  die. ' ' 
4 


46  THE   AM   HA-ARETZ 

It  was  a  solemn  indictment  before  the  Am  charg- 
ing Jeremiah  with  the  capital  crime  of  blas- 
phemy. At  once  the  Am  was  formally  convened 
in  its  meeting-hall  on  Temple  Hill  to  consider  the 
case  (269).  The  Sarim  were  duly  notified,  pro- 
ceeded to  the  Assembly  from  their  quarters  in 
the  royal  Palace  and  took  their  accustomed  seats 
in  the  Hall  by  the  door  of  the  New  Gate  (26io). 

In  the  narrative  of  the  Athaliah  revolution 
we  had  occasion  to  remark  that  in  the  south  wall 
of  the  Temple  Court  there  was  behind  the  royal 
Palace  a  gate  by  which  the  queen-mother  passed 
on  to  Temple  Hill.  It  is  near  the  site  of  this  gate 
and  hard  by  the  wall  that  the  Beth- Am  must  have 
stood  about  the  year  600,  though  the  old  gate  had 
disappeared  and  there  was  in  its  place  a  New 
Gate  of  the  Lord  by  which  on  this  occasion  the 
Sarim  entered  the  Lishcah,  and  hard  by  this  gate 
was  the  station  assigned  to  them  in  the  meeting 
of  the  Am  ha-aretz. 

The  two  chambers  being  seated  the  Court  was 
opened.  The  priests  and  the  prophets  laid  their 
formal  complaint  before  the  Sarim  and  the  Am 
demanding  judgment  of  death  (mishpat-maveth) 
against  Jeremiah;  for  that  he  hath  prophesied 
against  the  city  in  the  manner  just  recited  in  the 
complaint  (26ii). 

The  technical  offence  charged  was  blasphemy, 
in  modern  parlance,  high  treason. 

To  understand  the  situation  we  must  remem- 
ber that  the  priests  and  the  prophets  each  of 
which  bodies  constituted  a  brotherhood  or  guild 


JUDICIAL   PO^ArER  47 

were  probably  respectable  and  well-meaning  men 
who  tamely  followed  the  current  of  fashionable 
opinion.  Jeremiah  was  by  birth  entitled  to  mem- 
bership in  the  former  and  was  in  his  early  years 
probably  a  member  of  the  latter.  He  was  now 
arraigning  both  before  the  representatives  of 
the  nation. 

They  were  sincere  therefore  when  they  im- 
peached Jeremiah,  who,  in  their  eyes,  was  a  dis- 
turber of  tl>y  public  peace  and  an  inciter  to  revo-   ^ 
lution  against  Church  and  State. 

The  evidence  they  gave  was  true.  They 
merely  recited  the  words  he  had  used  and  he 
admitted  the  fact. 

The  question  of  law  raised  was :  Whether  the 
admitted  fact  constituted  blasphemy. 

That  public  excitement  ran  high  may  well  be 
imagined.  A  prophet  spurned  by  the  regulars, 
but  excelling  them  all  in  eloquence  and  reputa- 
tion was  sure  to  be  a  popular  hero.  The  fact  that 
under  these  circumstances  Jeremiah  spoke  his 
denunciation  w^ithin  a  few  feet  of  the  royal 
Palace  and  within  the  Temple  precincts  con- 
trolled by  the  priestly  and  prophetic  guilds, 
bears  witness  to  the  freedom  enjoyed  by  the 
people  and  to  the  firm  reliance  men  had  in  the 
honest  administration  of  the  law. 

Jeremiah  spoke  thus  in  his  defence:  **Sarim 
and  Am,  the  Lord  sent  me  to  prophesy  against 
this  Temple  and  against  this  city.  If  ye  amend 
your  ways  and  your  doings  and  obey  the  voice 
of  the  Lord  your  God,  the  Lord  will  repent  him 


48  THE  AM   HA-ARETZ 

of  the  evil  that  he  hath  pronounced  against  you. 
As  for  me,  I  am  in  your  hand.  Do  with  me  as 
seemeth  good  and  meet  unto  you.  But  know,  for 
certain,  that  if  ye  put  me  to  death,  ye  bring  inno- 
cent blood  upon  yourselves,  upon  this  city  and 
upon  its  inhabitants;  for,  verily,  the  Lord  hath 
sent  me  unto  you  to  speak  these  words  which 
ye  have  heard"  (2612-15). 

The  defence  was  dignified  and  noble  and 
worthy  to  be  spoken  in  the  highest  Court  of  the 
realm. 

The  first  speech  was  for  the  prosecution.  One 
of  the  Zekenim  who  favored  that  side  opened,  not 
by  a  vulgar  tirade,  but  in  the  legal  fashion  of  a 
country  long  accustomed  to  fair  and  open  judi- 
cial procedure.  Relying  upon  a  recent  precedent 
he  said:  In  this  very  reign  of  Jehoiakim  there 
was  Uriah  the  son  of  Shemaiah  of  Kiryath- 
yearim  who  also  prophesied  in  the  name  of  the 
Lord  against  this  city  and  against  this  land  just 
as  Jeremiah  has  done.  And  when  the  king 
Jehoiakim,  his  Gibborim  and  his  Sarim  heard 
the  words,  the  king  ordered  his  death,  and  when 
Uriah  learned  this,  he  was  afraid  and  fled  into 
Egypt.  And  the  king  sent  Elnathan  and  certain 
men  to  follow  him  into  Egypt,  and  they  brought 
him  back  to  the  king  Jehoiakim,  who  slew  him 
with  the  sword  and  cast  his  dead  body  into  the 
cemeterv    of    the    malefactors    (Bene    ha- Am 

The  speech  was  a  dangerous  one.  It  threw  in 
the  teeth  of  the  assembled  Sarim  and  Am  the 


JUDICIAL   POWER  49 

accusation  that  they  had,  a  short  time  before, 
themselves  adjudicated  the  question  in  harmony 
with  the  Royal  will  and  that  the  accused  had  with 
their  assent  or  acquiescence  suffered  death. 

Then  one  of  the  Zekenim  whose  name  is  un- 
fortunately not  preserved  spoke:  IMicah  the 
Morasthite  in  the  days  of  Hezekiah,  prophesied 
in  an  address  to  the  Am,  '^Zion  shall  be  ploughed 
like  a  field  and  Jerusalem  shall  become  heaps, 
and  the  Temple  Mount  like  the  Bamoth  of  for- 
ests. ' '  Did  Hezekiah  and  Col-Yehudah  put  him 
to  death  ?  Did  they  not  rather  fear  the  Lord  and 
beseech  the  Lord,  and  lo,  the  Lord  repented  liim 
of  the  evil  which  he  had  denounced  against  them  ? 
We  may  do  great  evil  to  ourselves  (26  16-19). 

And  then  rose  Ahikam  one  of  the  Sarim,  a 
distinguished  scion  of  the  great  house  of 
Shaphan.  In  his  family  had  been  for  at  least 
two  generations  the  high  office  of  Sofer  of  the 
Am  ha-aretz,  in  whose  Lishcah  the  Sarim  had 
their  meeting-hall  (Jer.  3610-12).  His  father 
had  been  one  of  the  great  men  in  Josiah's 
reign  (2  Kings  223) .  It  was  to  him  that  Hilkiah 
communicated  the  news  of  the  finding  of  the 
Sefer  ha-Torah  (2  Kings  223)  and  he  it  was 
who  read  it  to  the  king  (verse  10).  And  among 
the  Royal  Commission  of  five  appointed  by 
Josiah  to  put  in  force  the  new  Constitution 
of  the  realm  were  Shaphan  and  his  son  our 
Ahikam  (2  Kings  2212-2825).  And  Ahikam 's 
son  was  Gedaliah,  so  famous  in  Jewish  annals, 
who,  appointed  viceroy  of  Judea  by  the  Baby- 


50  THE   AM   HA-ARETZ 

Ionian  monarch  fell  a  victim  to  the  unworthy 
jealousy  of  the  decadent  Court  party,  and 
thereby  earned  immortality  in  Israel. 

We  may  be  sure  that  Ahikam  spoke  with  no 
uncertain  words.  His  address  has  not  survived, 
but  its  effect  was  so  striking  that  Jeremiah's 
acquittal  by  the  Am  was  afterwards  attributed 
to  it.  The  notice  is  brief  but  eloquent :  The  hand 
of  Ahikam  ben  Shaphan  was  with  Jeremiah  that 
he  might  not  be  condemned  to  death  by  the  Am 
(Jer.  2624). 

The  great  prophet  was  acquitted.  Fortu- 
nately the  words  of  the  judgment  are  preserved, 
a  precious  relic  of  the  practice  of  the  High 
Court:  The  Sarim  and  the  Am  declare  to  the 
priests  and  the  prophets  that  this  man(  Jere- 
miah) is  not  liable  to  the  mishpat  maveth  (is  not 
guilty  of  anything  deserving  death),  he  having 
spoken  to  us  in  the  name  of  the  Lord  our  God" 
(Jer.  26,6). 

One  word  in  conclusion  as  to  the  linguistic 
peculiarities  of  the  narrative.  There  are  some 
errors  in  the  text  doubtless,  but  none  that  lead  to 
confusion.  The  term  Am  ha-aretz  does  not  occur 
in  it.  In  lieu  thereof  we  have  the  expressions: 
cities  of  Judah  (meaning  the  delegates  to  the 
Am)  (Jer.  262)  ;  col  ha- Am  (verses  7,  8,  9, 11, 12, 
16)  ;  Sarim  ve-col-ha-am  (verses  11,  12,  16) ; 
zikne  ha-aretz  (verse  17)  ;  Col-Kehal  ha 'am 
(verse  17)  ;  col- Am  Yehudah  (verse  18)  ;  col 
Yehudah  (verse  19)  and  ha- Am  (verse  24). 


JUDICIAL   POWER  51 


THE  TRIAL  OF  NABOTH 
The  trial  of  Jeremiah  took  place  in  Jerusaleni 
about  the  year  600  B.C.  The  trial  of  Naboth 
came  off  in  Jezreel  in  the  northern  kingdom  more 
than  two  hundred  and  fifty  years  earlier.  The 
order  of  my  treatment  may  seem  inverted  but  it 
was  deemed  better  to  show  the  Am  and  Sarim 
sitting  together  as  a  Court  in  unmistakable 
fashion  in  Jerusalem  before  asking  attention  to 
the  existence  of  the  same  ancient  institution  in 
Ephraim. 

By  a  singular  coincidence  the  charge  in  this 
case  too  was  blasphemy  (leze-majesty  or  high 
treason). 

Naboth,  a  member  of  the  national  Council 
was  a  resident  of  Jezreel  where  among  his  pater- 
nal estates  was  a  vineyard  hard  by  King  Ahab^s 
Palace.  The  king  wished  to  buy  it  and  offered  in 
exchange  its  money  value  or  a  better  vineyard. 
Jezreel  being  a  walled  city,  such  a  sale  would  have 
made  the  law  of  Jubilee  inapplicable  and  the 
inheritance  of  his  fathers  would  have  been  for- 
ever lost  to  the  family  of  Naboth.  He  received 
the  proposal  with  horror  and  flatly  refused.  The 
king  showed  his  annoyance.  Jezebel  the  queen, 
remarking  it,  asked  the  reason  and  heard  the 
story.  The  haughty  Tyrian  princess  railed  at 
the  royalty  which  could  not  accomplish  so  little 
a  thing  (1  Kings  21]_7).  The  Constitution  could, 
however,  not  be  overcome.    There  was  in  Israel 


52  THE   AM   HA-ARETZ 

no  power  in  the  king  to  take  away  the  property 
of  his  subjects  without  their  consent.  Never- 
theless the  law  which  could  not  be  changed  by 
force  might  be  evaded  by  fraud.  With  Ahab's 
acquiescence  she  assumed  the  royal  powers  for 
the  purpose.  In  the  name  of  the  king  she  wrote 
sefarim  (writs  or  letters)  and  sealed  them  with 
the  royal  seal,  addressing  them  to  those  of  the 
Zekenim  and  the  Horim  who  dwelt  in  Jezreel, 
fellow-members  (Yoshebim)  of  the  National 
Council  with  Naboth,  These  resident  delegates 
evidently  constituted  a  committee  whose  duty  it 
was  when  the  Council  should  be  convoked  to  meet 
in  their  city,  to  notify  the  members  of  that  fact 
and  to  make  all  arrangements  necessary  for  the 
session.  The  writs  required  this  committee  to 
convoke  the  Assembly  (Kiru  tzom).  Doubtless 
these  were  letters  patent  and  were  addressed  to 
all  the  resident  members  including  Naboth 
himself. 

With  them,  however,  must  have  gone  secret 
instructions  of  which  Naboth  was  to  have  no 
inkling.  By  virtue  of  these  the  business  of  the 
session  was  to  try  Naboth  on  the  charge  men- 
tioned, to  convict  him  of  this  capital  offence,  to 
execute  him  and  to  confiscate  his  estate. 

It  may  be  that  Naboth  in  his  indignation  at 
the  king's  proposal  had  uttered  some  hasty 
words.  However  that  may  be,  they  were  insuffi- 
cient to  warrant  the  course  directed  to  be 
pursued. 

In  order  to  make  the  conviction  sure  and  give 


JUDICIAL   POWER  53 

it  the  appearance  of  regularity,  the  pliant  com- 
mittee were  advised  to  hire  two  perjured  wit- 
nesses who  would  give  the  necessary  testimony. 
The  plan  was  carried  out  to  the  letter.  Nabotli 
was  executed  and  Jezebel  was  duly  notified. 

Then  Jezebel,  triumphing  over  Ahab,  said  to 
him :  Take  possession  of  Naboth's  vineyard,  and 
Ahab  did  so. 

The  sleepless  tribune  of  the  people,  the 
prophet  Elijah,  boldly  confronted  the  royal 
malefactor  in  his  new  domain  and  foretold  the 
equal  and  retributive  justice  of  God  against  him 
and  his  line.  And  as  to  Jezebel  who  had  caused 
Naboth  to  descend  into  a  dishonored  grave,  the 
rite  of  burial  should  be  denied  her  and  her  car- 
cass become  food  for  ravening  dogs. 

And  the  noble  committee  of  Zekenim  and 
Horim  who  had  been  so  pliant  to  the  will  of  Jeze- 
bel and  who  were  equally  ready  to  murder 
Ahab's  progeny  when  Jehu's  rebellion  proved 
successful,  met  their  due  reward  at  the  hands  of 
Jehu  himself  (2  Kings  10i_ii). 

That  we  have  before  us  the  record  of  histori- 
cal events  which  made  a  deep  impression  upon 
the  people  is  evident  from  the  first  and  second 
chapters  of  Hosea.  The  prophet's  words  indi- 
cate that  the  people  at  large  had  a  keenly  devel- 
oped sense  of  justice  and  law,  that  this  had 
been  shocked  by  the  crimes  committed  and  that 
Heaven  itself  would  avenge  the  wrong. 

The  details  of  the  narrative  furnish  convinc- 
ing evidence  of  the  existence  of  constitutional 


54  THE   AM   HA-ARETZ 

limitations  in  the  northern  kingdom  and  that 
such  limitations  were  unknown  in  the  neighbor- 
ing kingdom  of  Tyre. 

The  case  was  a  capital  case  involving  the  life 
of  the  defendant  as  w^ell  as  his  property  (1  Kings 
21i3.i5.i6).  And  yet  the  Court  had  no  power  to 
disbelieve  witnesses.  So  soon  as  the  requisite 
number  of  them  had  declared  the  fatal  facts,  the 
judgment  seems  to  have  been  inevitable  (verse 
13). 

However  strange  this  view  may  seem  to  us 
now,  it  appears  to  be  consistent  with  ancient 
Hebrew  law.  The  Decalogue  (Exod.  20i6)  ex- 
pressly forbids  false  witness  and  Deut.  192i  pro- 
viding for  the  punishment  of  this  crime  enacts : 
'*  Thine  eye  shall  not  pity  but  life  shall  go  for 
life.'-'  He  that  swore  away  a  man's  life  was  to 
die  for  it.  For  this  reason  the  blame  is  not 
thrown  upon  the  Am  in  general,  but  only  on  the 
managing  committee  who  perpetrated  the  ini- 
quity and  virtually  compelled  the  other  members 
to  kill  Naboth  and  confiscate  his  property.  It 
was  the  city  members,  his  townsmen,  who  did 
this  to  gain  the  royal  favor  (verse  11),  and  upon 
them  fell  the  Divine  punishment  for  the  judicial 
murder. 

The  difficulties  in  the  narrative  are  not  to  be 
ignored.  The  words  Kiru  tzom  are  by  the 
authorized  version  rendered  ''Proclaim  a  fast." 
We  have  already  seen  that  Kara  is  the  technical 
word  for  convoking  the  Assembly,  and  that  its 
members  are  called  Keruim.     The  word  tzom, 


JUDICIAL   POWER  55 

translated  "fast,"  sometimes  means  a  convoca- 
tion of  the  national  Council.  In  two  instances 
( Jer.  360.9)  the  word  is  used  to  describe  a  gath- 
ering of  the  Am  (all  Judah,  comers  from  their 
cities ;  the  Am  in  Jerusalem  and  the  Am,  comers 
from  the  cities  of  Judah).  Joseph  Kimchi,  the 
father  of  Moses  and  David  Kimchi  (quoted  by 
David  Kimchi  in  his  Lexicon  and  by  Luzzatto  in 
his  Commentary  on  Jeremiah)  expressly  says 
that  tzom  in  1  Kings  2I9.12  and  in  Jer.  869  does 
not  mean  fasting,  but  a  popular  assemblage. 

Placing  Naboth  berosh  ha-Am  is  of  course  a 
difficult  phrase,  rendered  by  the  authorized  ver- 
sion "Set  Naboth  on  high  among  the  people." 
Yet  after  all  it  is  identical  wdth  the  Rosh  ha- 
Keruim  of  1  Sam.  922.  The  difficulty  is  purelj'' 
lexical  and  need  not  concern  us.  The  context 
makes  it  certain  that  Naboth  was  to  be  tried  and 
was  tried  by  the  Am  just  as  Saul  was  to  be  tested 
and  was  tested  by  the  Keruim,  and  that  the  word 
berosh  describes  the  fact  whatever  its  ordinary 
or  root  meaning  may  be.  It  is,  however,  a  matter 
of  great  interest  to  ascertain  what  rosh  really 
means  because  the  understanding  of  it  may 
throw  light  on  other  Scriptural  passages. 

The  bluntest  meaning  of  be-rosh  would  be: 
a  specified  position  or  place  in  a  court-room  or 
assembly  room,  set  apart  for  the  reception  of 
criminals  on  trial  or  of  persons  to  be  approved 
or  rejected.  That  such  a  place  might  have  been 
used  in  a  Hebrew  court-room  or  assembly-room 
and  that  it  might  have  been  called  the  Rosh  or 
head,  is  of  course  possible. 


56  THE   AM   HA-ARETZ 

The  more  probable  meaning  of  Berosh  ha- Am 
would  seem  to  be  ''in  the  session  of  the  'Am.'* 
In  speaking  of  a  man  on  trial  for  crime,  there  are 
places  in  England  and  in  this  country  where  it 
would  be  said  that  he  is  "in  the  sessions," 
because  courts  of  criminal  jurisdiction  are  fre- 
quently so  called.  Such  a  use  of  the  word  Rosh 
is  not  without  analogy. 

Nell.  1246.  In  the  days  of  David  and  Asaph  of 
old  there  was  a  Rosh  (guild)  of  singers.    - 

1  Chron.  I67.  On  that  day  David  delivered  in 
the  Rosh  (session  of  singets)  the  Lehodoth 
ladonai  (the  92d  Psalm  or  perhaps  a  whole  series 
of  psalms  of  similar  purport)  into  the  hand  of 
Asaph  and  his  brethren. 

Judges  9.37.  One  rosh  (company  of  soldiers). 

A  guild  or  company  is  after  all  but  a  rela- 
tively small  aggregation.  The  word  Rosh  soon 
acquired  a  larger  sense.  When  the  census  of 
Israel  was  to  be  taken  (Exod.  30i2,  Numbers  I2) 
the  expression  used  is  Nsa  Rosh,  which  means 
literally,  lifting  up  the  head,  but  practically,  tak- 
ing up  the  mmiber  or  sum  of  the  people. 

Of  course  Nsa  Rosh  as  census-taking  is  an 
exercise  "of  political  power.  But  the  expression 
has  also  a  judicial  sense  in  tw^o  narratives,  Gen. 
4O13.19,  Jer.  5231.  In  both  instances  persons  who 
have  been  undergoing  punishmejit  have  their 
cases  reconsidered. 

The  generally  accepted  meaning  of  the  term 
Nsa  Rosh  in  these  cases  is  to  pardon,  to  restore 
to  honor.    Unfortimately  for  this  definition  one 


JUDICIAL  POWER  57 

of  the  three  persons  affected  by  the  process  of 
Nsa  Rosh,  was  not  pardoned  but  hanged. 

The  usual  definition  is  therefore  untenable 
unless  we  assume  that  in  one  of  the  finest  pieces 
of  writing  in  Genesis,  the  history  of  Joseph,  the 
beauty  of  the  style  and  the  gravity  of  the  theme 
(the  loss  of  a  gentleman's  honor,  life  and  estate), 
are  suddenly  marred  by  the  unexpected  levity  of 
a  play  upon  words. 

The  real  meaning  is  that  the  case  was  taken 
up  aneAv,  was  reconsidered,  doubtless  with  a  view 
to  conferring  grace  and  pardon  if  practicable. 
In  our  own  language,  the  transfer  of  a  judgment 
to  an  Appellate  Court  for  review  is  familiarly 
called  '* taking  up  the  case." 

Gen.  40i3  would  then  be  rendered:  Within 
three  days  Pharaoh  will  take  up  thy  case  .(con- 
sider it)  and  he  will  restore  thee  to  thy  of&ce. 

Gen.  40i9  would  mean:  Within  three  days 
Pharaoh  will  take  up  thy  case  (consider  it)  and 
shall  hang  thee  on  a  tree ;  and  the  birds  shall  eat 
thy  flesh  from  off  thee  {me'aleclia). 

Gen.  4O20.  And  it  came  to  pass  the  third  day, 
which  was  Pharaoh's  birthday  that  he  made  a 
feast  to  his  ministers  and  he  took  up  the  case  of 
the  chief  butler  and  of  the  chief  baker  with  his 
ministers. 

Gen.  40oi.  And  he  restored  the  chief  butler 
into  his  butlership  again. 

Gen.  4O22.  But  he  hanged  the  chief  baker. 

The  only  difficulty  in  the  text  is  the  word 
me'aleclia  in  the  19th  verse.     It  occurs  twice. 


58  THE  AM   HA-ARETZ 

once  naturally  at  the  end  of  the  verse  (after  the 
word  besarecha) ,  and  again  in  the  middle  of  the 
verse  after  the  word  rosheclia.  This  last  inser- 
tion seems  a  mere  copyist's  error,  since  verse  22 
alludes  to  no  punishment  that  had  been  inflicted 
save  hanging.    Decapitation  is  not  mentioned. 

The  meaning  here  suggested  is  in  harmony 
with  Jer.  523 1,  where  it  is  related  that  Evil-  Mero- 
dach,  King  of  Babylon,  nasa  et-rosh  (took  up  the 
case)  of  Jehoiachin,  King  of  Judah,  and  brought 
him  forth  out  of  prison.  Here  as  in  the  passages 
from  Genesis,  the  case  is  first  considered  and 
then  the  result  is  announced.  If  the  suggestion 
here  made  is  correct  it  would  follow  that  the 
word  me'aleclia  after  rosheclia  would  have  to  be 
elided  from  Gen.  40i9. 

It  is  to  be  noted  here  that  both  cases  occur  in 
foreign  countries,  the  one  in  Egypt,  the  other  in 
Babylon;  that  in  the  former  the  king  was  cele- 
brating his  birthday  by  a  feast  to  his  ministers, 
and  in  the  latter  Evil  Merodachi  was  celebrating 
his  accession  to  the  throne.  Both  were  occasions 
when  it  has  always  been  and  still  is  customary 
for  royal  persons  to  hold  Beds  of  Pardon  and 
grant  grace  as  freely  as  practicable.  Perhaps 
the  inference  is  allowable  that  in  Israel  the  con- 
stitution and  the  laws  so  limited  the  royal  power 
that  there  was  much  less  opportunity  for  the 
exhibition  of  capricious  grace  or  wanton  cruelty 
by  the  king,  than  in  the  other  monarchies  of  the 
near  East. 

There  is  another  instance  of  this  use  of  the 


JUDICIAL   POWER  59 

word  Yissa  in  Habakkuk.    In  his  first  chapter 
he  complains  of  the  law's  delays. 

Verse  3.  There  is  the  rib  (the  issue  to  bei 
tried)  and  the  madon  (judgment)  f'issa  (is' 
taken  up,  appealed).  ^' 

Verse  4.  Therefore  the  law  is  slacked,  and 
judgment  doth  never  go  forth;  for  the  offender 
doth  compass  about  him  that  hath  the  right  of 
it ;  therefore  twisted  judgment  is  rendered. 

Of  the  limited  nature  of  the  Judean  king's 
pardoning  power  there  is  a  striking  instance  in 
King  Zedekiah's  time.  Jeremiah  advocated  cer- 
tain measures  which  neither  the  king,  nor  his 
ministers,  nor  the  Am  ha-aretz  would  adopt  ( Jer. 
372).  The  probability  is  that  he  warned  them 
against  the  Egyptian  alliance,  foreseeing  Baby- 
lonian pre-eminence  (46i9_26)  and  the  dire  results 
of  Bab3donian  enmity  (378_io).  A  charge  was 
trumped  up  against  him  that  he  was  about  to 
desert  to  the  Chaldean  enemy,  for  which  alleged 
act  of  treason  he  was  whipped  and  imprisoned 
(37i3-i9)  and  the  king  was  asked  in  effect  to  sign 
his  death-warrant  on  the  ground  that  "he  weak- 
eneth  the  spirit  of  the  garrison  and  of  the  Am 
by  speaking  to  them  as  he  does.  He  seeketh  not 
the  welfare  of  the  people,  but  the  hurt"  (384). 

Zedekiah  did  not  dare  to  refuse  (Jer.  385), 
and  gave  tlie  Sarim  their  warrant  in  these  words : 
'* Behold  he  is  in  your  hand;  for  the  king  cannot 
do  anything  against  j^ou." 

The  mode  of  death  chosen  was  not  one  of 
those  prescribed  by  law.    He  was  put  in  a  loath- 


60  THE  AM   HA-ARETZ 

some  place  where  lie  would  be  sure  to  die  and  his 
death  could  be  represented  to  the  people  as  due 
to  natural  causes  or  to  accident. 

The  interference  of  a  powerful  friend,  a 
member  of  the  king's  cabinet,  saved  Jeremiah's 
life.  But  even  with  this  influence  at  work,  the 
king  did  not  dare  to  pardon  Jeremiah.  He 
merely  changed  the  prison.  And  when,  before 
doing  this,  he  had  an  interview  with  Jeremiah  on 
the  great  political  question  involved,  he  told  the 
latter  in  effect  that  the  Sarim  would  immediately 
investigate  the  matter  and  if  the  subject  of  the 
interview  were  disclosed  they  would  surely  put 
him  to  death,  warning  him  at  the  same  time  to  be 
prudently  reticent,  and  merely  to  tell  them  that 
he  had  presented  to  the  king  a  petition  for  re- 
moval to  another  prison  (387_26). 

And  in  point  of  fact  the  Sarim  immediately 
brought  Jeremiah  before  them  and  made  inquiry 
as  to  the  nature  of  his  interview  with  the  king. 
He  suppressed  the  main  portion  and  was  allowed 
to  return  to  the  milder  prison,  where  he  was 
found  when  the  Babylonians  captured  the  city. 


Ill 

THE  WITNESS  OF  LITERATURE 

When  ideas  are  deeply  rooted  in  the  con- 
sciousness of  a  nation  they  find  literary  expres- 
sion. If  our  view  of  the  meaning  of  these  words 
Am  ha-aretz  and  Rosh  be  correct,  the  Hebrew 
literature  ought  to  confirm  it. 

I  have  already  said  that  the  word  Am  ha-aretz 
is  usually  rendered  "the  people  at  large  as  a 
body;  common  people."  Ezekiel  Tt  has  been 
often  used  by  lexicographers  to  support  this 
view.  And  yet  it  is  Ezekiel  himself  who  has  fur- 
nished the  only  real  definition  of  the  word  in 
Biblical  literature  and  that  in  a  contrary  sense. 
In  his  22d  chapter,  verse  29,  he  complains  that 
the  Am  ha-aretz  have  used  oppression  and  exer- 
cised robbery,  have  vexed  the  poor  and  needy 
and  have  oppressed  the  stranger  w^rongfully 
(helo  mislipat^  denying  justice^'-'^he  plain 
meaning  is  that  this  very  Am  ha-aretz,  violating 
its  function  to  deal  out  mishpat  (judgment), 
oppresses  the  people  at  large.  Such  a  conception 
unerringly  points  to  a  governing  body  which  has 
departed  from  its  original  purpose  to  represent 
the  people  and  is  acting  in  hostility  to  the  latter. 
And  an  examination  of  the  six  other  passages  in 
Ezekiel  confirms  this  view. 

In  726.27,  foretelling  evil  doom,  he  enumerates 
calamities:  the  law  (tor ah)  shall  perish  from  the 


62  THE   AM   HA-ARETZ 

cohen  and  counsel  from  the  Zehenim,  the  king 
shall  mourn,  the  nasi  be  clothed  with  desolation 
and  the  hands  of  the  Am  lia-aretz  shall  be 
troubled.  This  is  a  catalogue  of  magnates  of  the 
country.  Similar  lists  are  found  in  2226-29: 
priests,  sarim,  prophets,  Am  ha-arets. 
Jeremiah  has  like  enumerations : 

I18.      Kii^g,  sarim,  priests,  Am  ha-aretz. 
34i9.  Sarim,    sarisim,    priests,    Ana  -ha 

aretz. 
372.      King,  ministers.  Am  ha-aretz. 
4421.       King,  sarim.  Am  ha-aretz. 
'   5224.25.  Cohen  ha-rosh,   Cohen  ha-Mish- 
neh,  door-keepers,  general  of 
the  army,  king's  cabinet,  mar- 
shal of  the  Am  ha-aretz,  mem- 
bers of  the  Am  ha-aretz. 
Job  does  the  like  (12i8_24)  :  king,  priests,  zeke- 
nim,  nedibim,  Am  ha-aretz,  as  does  Haggai  (24)  : 
Zerubbabel,  high  priest,  Am  ha-aretz. 

Moreover,  Ezekiel  puts  the  Nasi  in  direct 

relation  with  the  Am  ha-aretz  and  even  places 

him  in  the  middle  where  its  President  should  be. 

In  Ezekiel  45 le   the   Am  ha-aretz   gives   an 

oblation  for  the  Nasi  and  in 

4522  the  Nasi  gives  an  offering  for  him- 
self and  for  the  Am  ha-aretz. 
46i  The  gate  of  the  inner  court  that 
looketh  to  the  east  shall  be 
opened  on  Sabbath  and  on  the 
day  of  the  new  moon ; 
462  the  Nasi  shall  worship  at  the  thresh- 
old of  this  gate  and 


THE  WITNESS   OF   LITERATURE  68 

463    the  Am  ha-aretz  shall  worship  at  the 
door  of  this  gate. 

468  When  the  Nasi  shall  enter  he  shall 

go  in  and  go  out  by  the  way  of 
the  porch  of  this  gate. 

469  But   when   the   Am   ha-aretz   shall 

come  before  the  Lord  in  the  sol- 
emn feasts,  he  that  entereth  in 
by  the  way  of  the  north  gate  to 
worship  shall  go  out  by  the  way 
of  the  south  gate;  and  he  that 
entereth  by  the  way  of  the  south 
gate  shall  go  forth  by  the  way  of 
the  north  gate  (one  half  comes  in 
by  the  north  gate ;  the  other  half 
by  the  south  gate)  ; 
46io  And  the  Nasi  in  the  midst  of  them 
(betocham) ;  when  they  go  in,  he 
shall  go  in;  and  when  they  go 
forth,  he  shall  go  forth. 
And  yet  another  thing.     Ezekiel  (I219)  by 
apposition  defines  the  Am  ha-aretz  as  the  yoshebe 
yerushalayim  and  the  admath  Yisrael,  both  apt 
expressions  for  delegates. 

Here  are  instances  of  parallelism : 

Isaiah  lio :  Hear  the  word  of  the  Lord  Ketzi- 
nim  (nobles)  of  Sodom;  Give  ear  unto  the  law 
of  our  God  'Am  of  Gomorrah. 

Psalm  10?32 :  Let  them  exalt  him  in  the  meet- 
ing of  the  Am,  And  praise  him  in  the  Assembly 
of  the  Zekenim. 

The  most  striking  passage  of  all  is  Job  (I22). 


64  THE   AM   HA-ARETZ 

Job's  friends  having  irritated  him  with  long 
preachments  and  Zophar  having  impeached  his 
good  sense  (lie)  he  at  length  breaks  out:  *'No 
doubt  ye  are  the  Am  and  wisdom  will  die  with 
you/'  No  one  has  ever  before  been  able  to  assign 
a  satisfactory  meaning  to  this  sentence. 

There  is  still  the  term  Keher  or  Kibre  bene 
ha- Am,  the  graves  (or  cemetery)  of  the  bene 
ha-Am.  In  2  Kings  23e  the  implements  of 
heathendom  are  burned  and  the  ashes  thrown 
upon  this  place.  In  Jer.  2623  the  prophet  Uriah 
having  been  executed  for  blasphemy,  his  dead 
body  was  thrown  into  the  same  place. 

The  translators  render,  in  one  place,  *Hhe 
graves  of  the  common  people,"  and  in  the  other, 
' '  the  graves  of  the  children  of  the  people. ' '  These 
variant  definitions  of  the  same  expression  have 
this  in  common  that  neither  gives  any  sensible 
meaning.  Assuming  the  common  people  to  be 
the  majority  of  inhabitants,  it  is  incredible  that 
their  graves  should  be  subject  to  gross  defilement. 
If,  however,  we  reflect  for  a  moment,  the  diffi- 
culty seems  capable  of  a  reasonable  solution. 

Blasphemy,  as  is  well  known,  was  punishable 
by  death ;  the  form  of  death,  stoning,  was  looked 
upon  as  the  severest  of  all.  The  ancient  mode  of 
inflicting  this  punishment  was  by  taking  the 
offender  to  a  place  at  the  edge  of  a  deep  depres- 
sion, when  the  first  witness  gave  him  a  push  in 
the  back  which  precipitated  him  into  the  depth 
below  so  that  the  fall  itself  might  produce  death. 
If  this  result  was  not  obtained,  the  second  wit- 


THE  W^ITNESS  OF  LITERATURE  66 

ness  threw  the  first  stone  upon  the  victim's  chest. 
If  he  was  still  alive  the  whole  Am  threw  stones 
upon  him  (Deut.  ISg  ITt;  Lev.  24i4.i6;  Mishnah 
Sanhedrin  VI.  4). 

There  was  doubtless  a  place  of  execution  X 
overhanging  the  Kidron  valley,  and  the  burial- 
place  was  at  or  near  the  point  where  the  bodies 
fell.  Such  a  cemetery  for  the  victims  of  the  Am 
might  by  a  euphemism  be  called  "the  cemetery 
of  the  children  of  the  Am"  and  would  of  course 
suggest  horrible  defilement. 

When,  therefore,  the  implements  of  idolatry 
were  reduced  to  ashes  and  this  form  of  worship 
w^as  to  be  publicly  disgraced,  the  natural  place 
for  depositing  the  ashes  would  be  this  cemetery 
of  the  malefactors. 

The  texts  all  fit  in  with  this  meaning.  The 
existence  of  such  a  place  of  defilement  in  the 
Kidron  valley  is  established  for  the  time  of  Asa 
(1  Kings  15i3,  2  Chron.  ISie)  ;  for  the  time  of 
Hezekiah  (2  Chron.  29i6  3O14)  ;  and  for  the  time 
of  Josiah  (2  Kings  236). 

The  description  of  Jer.  (3I40)  thus  becomes 
plain.  He  speaks  in  Messianic  language  of  the 
time  when  that  which  is  now  defiled  shall  become 
sanctified,  using  this  language :  ' '  And  the  whole 
^^  valley  of  the  carcasses,  and  of  the  ashes,  and  all 
^  the  fields  00  unto  the  brook  of  Kidron  *  *  * 
shall  be  holy  unto  the  Lord." 

In  early  times  this  place  of  execution  over- 
hanging the  Kidron  valley  in  or  near  Jerusalem 
was  probably  called  Azazel.    Much  curious  learn- 


Q6  THE  AM   HA-ARETZ 

ing  lias  been  expended  on  this  name  as  well  in 
ancient  as  in  modern  times,  but  the  sober  judg- 
ment of  the  Rabbis  that  it  meant  a  steep  cliff, 
though  perhaps  imperfect  on  the  score  of  ety- 
mology, is  as  regards  the  substance  of  the  matter, 
correct  (Talmud  Babli,  Yoma  67b). 

The  ceremony  of  the  Scapegoat  (Lev.  I621), 
the  atonement  of  the  nation  for  blood  shed  by 
undiscovered  malefactors,  is  an  extension  to  the 
whole  country  of  a  similar  ceremony  once  incum- 
bent upon  the  inhabitants  of  a  city  (Deut.  21i_8). 

The  high-priest  laid  his  hand  upon  the  head 
of  the  goat.  It  was  then  sent  off  into  the  wilder- 
ness and  by  a  push  in  the  back  thrown  down  to 
its  death  from  a  sheer  mountain-cliff  (Mishnah, 
Yoma  VI4). 

That  these  proceedings  are  in  entire  analogy 
with  the  ceremonies  at  the  execution  of  criminals 
appears  from  the  old  law  (Lev.  24i4.i6)  where  in 
cases  of  blasphemy  the  Edah  stoned  the  criminal 
while  the  witnesses  laid  their  hands  upon  his 
head. 

It  is  fair  to  conclude  that  originally  Azazel 
was  the  name  of  a  high  point  in  or  about  Jeru- 
salem, that  it  overlooked  the  Kidron  valley  and 
was  the  place  of  execution.  In  later  times  the 
name  was  transferred  to  the  height  some  miles 
off,  from  which  the  scapegoat  was  hurled. 

To  these  literary  quotations  concerning  the 
Am  I  may  add  as  an  item  of  interest  that  cele- 
brated Amoraim,  sixteen  hundred  years  ago 
divined  the  meaning  now  assigned  to  it. 


THE  WITNESS  OF  LITERATURE     67 

Jonathan  ben  Eleazar  in  the  third  century 
and  Abahu  about  the  year  300  found  the  San- 
hedrin,  the  former  in  the  Am  ha-aretz  of  2  Kings 
25ig_2i  and  Jer.  5224-27  (Tahnud  Yerush.,  Sanhe- 
drin,  Perek  1,  Hal.  2)  and  the  latter  in  the  Edah 
of  Numbers  272i  (Talmud  Babli,  Sanhedrin 
16a). 

As  regards  the  word  Rosh,  literary  examples 

(besides  those  already  adduced)  are  not  wanting. 

Deut.  20».  And  it  shall  be  when  the  shoterim  have 
made  an  end  of  speaking  to  the  people,  that 
they  shall  make  captains  of  the  armies 
be-rosh  ha- Am  (in  the  session  of  the  Am). 

Deut.  385.  And  he  was  king  in  Jeshurun,  when 
the  Rashe-Am  were  gathered  together — the 
tribes  of  Israel. 

Ibid.  3321.  Of  Gad — And  his  was  the  first  place, 
because  there  in  the  portion  of  the  lawgiver 
(mehokek)  was  he  seated,  and  there — the 
Rashe-Am  having  come — he  executed  the 
decree  of  the  Lord  and  his  judgments  with 
Israel. 

Judg.  934.  Four  rashim  (companies). 
937.  One  rosh  (company). 
943.  Three  rashim  (companies). 

2  Sam.  38.  Am  I  of  the  Rosh  (Council,  League) 
of  Caleb  which  is  with  Judah? 

1  Sam.  282.  Therefore  I  will  make  thee  perpetual 

sliomer   (officer,  perhaps  like  slioter.    See 
also  2  Kings  9i4)  of  my  rosh  (council). 

2  Kings  23.B.  The  Lord  will  take  away  thy  master 

from  thy  rosli  (guild)  to-day. 


68  THE  AM   HA-ARETZ 

Isa.  5I20.  Berosh  (in  the  concourse)  of  streets. 
Jer.  Sle.  Berosh  ha-goyim  (in  the  council  of  the 

nations). 
Ezek.  21 26.  The  King  of  Babylon  stood  at  the 

parting  of  the  way,  at  the  union  (rosh)  of 

the  two  ways. 

882.3  39i.  Magog  the  Nasi  of  the  rosh  (league, 

union)  of  Meshech  and  Tubal. 

40i.  Berosh  ha-shanah  (in  the  annual  Coun- 
cil) on  the  tenth  day  of  the  month. 
Amos  67.  Therefore  shall  they  go  captive  with 

the  company  of  exiles  (Berosh  golim). 
Prov.  I21.  At  the  concourse  (Rosh)  of  streets  she 

crieth,  at  the  leaves  of  the  city-gates  she 

uttereth  her  words. 
Prov.  1823.  Much  food  is  in  the  tillage  of  the  just 

(Rashim)  but  there  is  that  is  destroyed  for 

lack  of  judgment  (Mishpat). 
Mic.  811.  Her  Rashim   (courts)   judge  for  re- 

w^ard;  her  priests  teach  for  hire  and  her 

prophets  divine  for  money. 
Ps.  IO89.  Ephraim  is  the  strength  of  my  Council 

(Rosh)  ;  Judah  is  my  lawgiver  (mehokek). 
Job  I17.  Three  bands  (Rashim). 
Job  22i2.  Behold  the  company   (Rosh)   of  the 

stars,  how  high  they  are ! 
Ezra  9q.  Our  iniquities  reach  to  the  Rosh  (Coun- 
cil) on  high  and  our  trespass  is  grown  up 

to  Heaven. 
1  Chron.  I223.  Rashim  (companies)  of  soldiers. 

The  conclusion  of  the  whole  matter  is  but 
this  question:     Does  Am  ha-aretz  mean   the 


THE  WITNESS   OF   LITERATURE  69 

common  people  or  does  it  mean  a  body  of  dele- 
gates akin  to  a  Parliament  or  to  a  Congress  ? 

And  now  it  remains  for  me  to  sum  up.  In 
doing  so  I  shall  not  confine  myself  to  the  evidence 
above  produced.  The  whole  mass  of  data  from 
the  beginning  to  the  catastrophe  of  586  will  be 
taken  into  account,  and  the  conclusions  formed 
therefrom  will  be  given  so  as  to  make  clear  my 
notion  as  to  the  mode  in  which  the  constitutional 
history  of  Israel  should  be  viewed. 

One  digression  I  shall,  however,  permit 
myself.  As  the  whole  of  the  argument  tends  to 
prove  that  the  Sanhedrin  which  we  know  of,  had 
its  roots  in  the  very  beginnings  of  the  Hebrew 
people,  so  in  all  probability  the  Oral  Law  that  we 
know  had  its  origin  in  the  earliest  times.  Natu- 
rally it  developed,  as  all  common  law  does,  by 
slow  gradations  and  small  accretions,  but  that  it 
had  a  definite  form  many  hundred  years  before 
ever  a  Mishnah  was  written,  seems  obvious  and 
inevitable.  I  shall  cite  but  one  example  and  that 
from  the  first  book  of  Kings  3i6_28. 

It  is  the  celebrated  judgment  of  Solomon. 
Two  women  claimed  the  possession  of  a  child, 
each  declaring  herself  its  mother.  The  question 
to  be  decided  was.  Which  has  the  right  of  it? 
Witnesses  there  were  none,  so  that  the  matter 
was  left  in  equilibrium.  An  arbitrary  judgment 
at  the  mere  will  of  the  king  was  according  to 
Hebrew  ideas  unthinkable.  He  had  fervently 
prayed  to  God  to  give  him  a  ''hearing"  heart  to 


70  THE  AM   HA-ARETZ 

judge  (1  Kings  89),  and  the  prayer  liad  been 
granted  that  he  become  wise  'Ho  hear''  mishpat 
(3i2.i3).  So  is  the  function  of  the  true  judge 
defined:  "Hear  both  sides  and  judge  aright" 
(Deut.  lie).  The  Court  had  heard  the  two 
women,  but  as  their  statements  neutralized  each 
other,  there  appeared  to  be  no  means  of  judg- 
ment save  mere  favoritism. 

And  yet  Solomon  without  hesitation  pro- 
nounced a  judgment  as  formal  as  if  it  had  been 
read  from  a  volume  of  Precedents,  reciting  the 
averments  of  each  party  and  decreeing  a  divi- 
sion of  the  child  into  equal  halves,  one  to  each. 
In  later  times  when  the  precedents  on  all 
questions  were  codified  in  the  Mishnah,  there 
was  inserted  in  Baba  Metzia,  ch.  1,  §1,  a  para- 
graph which  startlingly  resembles  Solomon's 
law.  The  question  there  is.  What  is  to  become  of 
a  divisible  piece  of  personal  property  which  two 
claim  with  apparently  equal  right,  and  the  solu- 
tion is  an  avowal  of  the  inability  of  the  law  to  do 
exact  justice,  and  hence  as  a  compromise  the 
parties  share  equally. 

The  similarity  of  the  phraseology  between 
the  two  instances  is  astonishing,  and  the  choice 
is  left  us  to  believe,  either  that  the  Mishnah,  eight 
hundred  years  later,  copied  this  form,  or  that  in 
Solomon's  time  the  law  for  dividing  property 
under  such  circumstances  was  already  knoAvn, 
and  that,  for  want  of  law  or  precedent  to  govern 
the  puzzling  case  before  him,  he  with  audacious 
humor  pretended  to  believe  that  the  rule  con- 


THE  WITNESS    OF  LITERATURE  71 

cerning  inanimate  goods  would  apply  to  a  living 
being. 

The  first  supposition  seems  the  easier  to 
accept.  Reflection,  however,  tends  to  make  it 
more  and  more  improbable.  The  idea  of  cutting 
in  half  a  babv  smiling  at  you,  for  the  purpose  of 
solving  a  legal  puzzle,  would  not  occur  to  a  man, 
especially  not  to  a  royal  gentleman  like  Solomon. 
And  even  impish  suggestions  are  more  likely  to 
have  some  associated  idea  beliind  them  than  to 
be  merely  grasped  out  of  the  air. 

The  second  supposition  is  more  in  accord 
with  human  nature.  The  division  of  the  child 
would  then  be  suggested  by  a  well-known  prin- 
ciple which  everybody  recognizes,  but  which 
nobody  would  ever  think  of  applying  to  the  case 
in  hand.  Driven  into  a  corner  the  king  in  a  flash 
sees  how  it  can  be  used  to  bare  the  souls  of  the 
parties,  lets  fly  his  arrow  and  hits.  It  is  the 
triumph  of  wit  and  psychology. 

Should  the  latter  view  be  accepted  we  have 
in  the  Book  of  Kings  the  earliest  Mishnah  yet 
identified,  the  incident  itself  going  back  a  thou- 
sand years  before  the  Common  Era,  and  the  book 
in  which  it  is  recorded  being  by  the  best  critics 
assigned  to  600  B.C. 

This  view  moreover  supports  our  main  thesis. 
If  some  unwritten  law  which  the  Sanhedrin 
administered,  may  be  traced  back  a  thousand 
years,  there  is  nothing  improbable  in  supposing 
that  the  Tribunal  itself  may  have  had  a  pre- 
cursor, equally  ancient. 


72  THE   AM   HA-ARETZ 

Strange  as  the  view  may  appear  there  is 
really  nothing  improbable  in  it.  All  written  law 
is  preceded  by  oral  law,  and  so  soon  as  written, 
the  process  of  making  new  oral  law,  however 
sternly  inhibited,  at  once  begins.  The  difficulty 
of  applying  this  principle  to  the  Jewish  oral  law, 
arises  only  from  the  unscientific  notion  held  by 
many,  that  all  such  accretions  are  equally  old. 
So  soon  as  we  understand  the  true  nature  of  oral 
law,  it  becomes  obvious  that  some  of  it  must  be 
of  immense  antiquity,  and  that  as  to  it,  the  old 
notion  that  it  is  coeval  with  the  Torah  is  not, 
as  has  often  been  supposed,  an  absurd  extrava- 
gance. 

And  now,  to  conclude.  If  you  find  that  the 
new  meanings  proposed  for  Am  ha-aretz,for  Am, 
for  Rosh,  give  a  clearer  and  more  intelligent 
sense  to  the  passages  in  which  they  occur,  than  do 
the  meanings  heretofore  assigned  to  them,  the  in- 
ference is  easy  that  the  old  meanings  are  wrong 
and  that  the  new  meanings  are  at  least  a  step  in 
the  right  direction.  Moreover,  if,  following  this 
path,  you  find  that  not  only  was  there  a  Parlia- 
ment, but  that  it  rose  from  small  beginnings  until 
it  reached  a  worthy  development,  you  may  fairly 
conclude  that  the  subject  is  at  least  worth  re-ex- 
amination. 

The  Parliament  of  Israel  had  its  humble 
beginnings  at  the  city  gate,  where  the  elders  of 
the  town,  ''comers  to  the  gate,"  sat  to  hold  the 
Town  Council  and  the  Municipal  Court.  Gradu- 
ally there  was  evolved,  from  this  familiar  insti- 


THE  WITNESS    OF   LITERATURE  73 

tution,  the  tribal  Am  which  dealt  with  the  larger 
matters  of  the  district  inhabited  by  the  tribe. 
Friendliness  among  neighbors  and  the  necessity 
of  defence  against  enemies  produced  alliances 
between  several  tribes,  and  finally  there  resulted 
a  union  of  all  or  nearly  all  the  tribes  of  Israel. 
Then  only  could  there  have  been  formed  a  gen- 
eral gathering  of  delegates,  an  Am  of  the  land, 
our  Am  ha-aretz. 

The  period  of  the  Judges  was  a  time  of  proba- 
tion and  preparation  for  national  unity,  and  it 
was  the  last  and  the  greatest  of  them,  Samuel, 
who  began  to  put  this  idea  into  practical  effect. 
With  bitter  heart-burnings  and  regrets,  he  exe- 
cuted the  plan  which  he  knew  to  be  an  advance  in 
the  greatness  of  his  people,  but  concerning  which 
he  feared  that  it  might  lead  to  a  diminution  of 
their  liberties. 

It  became  his  duty  and  his  privilege  to  con- 
vene the  first  Congress  of  United  Israel,  the 
Congress  (Rosh  ha-Keruim)  which  elected 
Israel's  first  king,  Saul  of  the  tribe  of  Benjamin. 
The  proceedings  of  that  body  I  have  endeavored 
to  delineate.  Then  followed  a  period  of  conflict 
between  the  house  of  Saul  and  the  house  of  David 
and  between  various  members  of  the  Davidic 
house,  in  all  of  which  the  national  Am  exhibited 
a  certain  instability  in  the  presence  of  tribal  Ams 
which  were  still  active,  until  finally  Solomon  suc- 
ceeded in  establishing  a  real  union.  At  his  death, 
however,  this  temporary  unity  was  lost  forever. 
The  kingdom  of  Israel  was,  by  secession,  divided 


74  THE   AM   HA-ARETZ 

into  a  Northern  and  a  Southern  Kingdom,  the 
latter  of  which,  the  smaller,  remained  true  to  the 
house  of  David,  while  the  former  founded  new 
royal  families. 

The  Am  ha-aretz  persisted  in  both  kingdoms 
till  their  overthrow,  the  former  in  the  seventh, 
the  latter  in  the  sixth  century,  B.C.  The  data 
concerning  the  Southern  Kingdom  are  fuller 
than  those  of  the  Northern.  From  them  we  con- 
clude that  originally  the  Am  ha-aretz  was  com- 
posed of  persons  of  note  selected  to  represent 
the  various  districts,  especially  the  cities  of  the 
land;  that  at  first  their  opinions  and  habits  in- 
clined them  to  aristocracy;  that  there  was  a 
gradual  growth  of  democratic  opinion  which 
powerfully  influenced  king,  nobles  and  Am  ha- 
aretz;  that  this  resulted  in  the  rise  of  a  great 
popular  party  which  was  called  Dallim  (pau- 
pers), a  nickname  probably  applied  to  them  by 
their  adversaries  and  then  accepted  as  a  title  of 
honor ;  that  the  great  leaders  of  this  democratic 
party  were  the  writing  prophets;  that  the  aris- 
tocratic or  Tory  party  was  called  Elim  (the 
great),  and  that  these  factions  were  divided  on 
momentous  public  questions. 

It  would  appear  further  that  the  upper  house 
of  twelve  (or  ten)  Sarim  mostly  held  with  the 
Elim  and  were  nearer  to  the  throne  than  the  Am 
ha-aretz.  In  political  and  in  judicial  matters, 
both  houses  sat  and  voted  as  one  body,  the  order 
of  procedure  being  that  the  Am  ha-aretz  met 
first,  and  when  called  to  order,  sent  a  message  to 


THE   WITNESS    OF   LITERATURE  75 

the  Sarim  that  they  were  prepared  for  biismess, 
whereupon  the  latter  left  their  Hall  and  joined 
the  session,  wherein  a  special  place  was  assigned 
to  them. 

The  Prophets  whom  we  know  (the  writing 
Prophets)  were  the  Tribunes  of  the  people,  and 
their  function  was  to  to  criticize  all  public  and 
private  wrongs.  King,  priests,  prophets,  nobles, 
the  Am  ha-aretz,  the  plutocracy,  all  came  in  for 
their  censure.  Though  disliked  by  all  these 
classes,  they  were  feared ;  otherwise  their  amaz- 
ing boldness  of  speech  would  have  cost  them  their 
heads.  And  they  could  not  have  been  greatly 
feared  by  the  classes,  if  there  had  not  been  be- 
hind them  a  popular  support  w^hich  was  formid- 
able, and  a  public  opinion  of  the  masses  wliich 
w^as  controlling. 

It  is  probable  that  in  the  early  days  the  king 
himself  presided  over  the  joint  meeting  of  the 
Am  ha-aretz  and  the  Sarim  (or  Nesiim;  in  the 
Northern  Kingdom,  Horim).  Afterwards  that 
duty  appears  to  have  devolved  on  the  heir- 
apparent,  and  during  some  periods  on  the  Chief 
Priest. 

In  delivering  judgments  the  form  was  to 
render  them  in  the  name  of  the  Sarim  and  the 
Zekenim. 

For  a  long  period  the  great  question  before 
the  country  was  whether  it  Avas  wiser  to  be 
friendly  with  Babylon  or  with  Egypt.  While 
true  patriots  were  anxious  to  avoid  all  alliances, 
the  problem  could  not  be  so  solved  or  evaded. 


76  THE   AM   HA-ARETZ 

Jeremiah,  for  instance,  was  for  the  Babylonian 
alliance,  while  the  Court  was  all  for  Egypt.  With 
the  Court  went  the  Elim,  while  the  Dallim  fol- 
lowed Jeremiah. 

At  the  final  catastrophe,  the  Babylonian  vic- 
tors were  disposed  to  reorganize  the  government, 
though  only  on  condition  that  the  Royal  House 
and  its  Egypt-loving  followers  should  be  elimi- 
nated. Hence  there  was  no  king  named  to  suc- 
ceed Zedekiah.  The  country  was  to  have  a  more 
democratic  administration  under  the  viceroy 
Gedaliah,  with  a  Dallim  Parliament,  presided 
over  by  Jeremiah.  The  plan  miscarried,  because 
the  Royalist  party  was  able  to  muster  a  large 
force  of  freebooting  soldiers,  who  murdered 
Gedaliah  and  carried  off  Jeremiah  to  Egypt. 

This  hasty  and  scanty  review  suffices  to  show 
that  some  of  our  pet  opinions  need  revision. 
Jeremiah  and  the  other  Prophets,  when  they 
addressed  the  Am  ha-aretz,  were  speaking  for 
the  masses  to  the  classes,  and  on  behalf  of  the 
public  they  demanded  an  improvement  in  the 
conduct  of  the  state  and  in  the  morality  of  the 
classes. 

From  this  point  of  view  it  may  be  con- 
cluded, that  the  Jewish  people  at  large  had  as 
keen  an  outlook  and  as  wide  a  vision,  in  political 
as  in  religious  affairs,  and  that  while  the  modern 
monotheistic  conception  of  the  universe  is  largely 
the  product  of  their  genius,  so  the  modern  con- 
ception of  a  rational  democratic  representative 
government  owes  its  origin  to  the  same  ances- 


THE    WITNESS   OF   LITERATURE  77 

try.  The  remarkable  phenomenon  that  the  Eng- 
lish people  and  their  American  descendants,  the 
only  nations  that  have  really  comprehended  and 
utilized  the  principles  of  parliamentary  govern- 
ment, took  the  Jews'  Bible  as  their  text-book  in 
times  of  stress  and  storm,  will  thus  be  explained, 
and  this  explanation  will  make  it  clear  that  the 
Gerusia,  the  great  Synagogue,  and  the  Sanhedrin 
were  not  mushrooms  that  sprang  up  over  night, 
but  giant  trees  whose  seed  was  planted  centuries 
before  in  the  minds  and  hearts  of  the  people: 

The  question  naturally  arises  as  to  the  cause 
of  the  downfall  of  the  Jewish  state.  If  Israel 
was  wise  politically,  why  was  it  not  successful? 
The  parallel  question  is  just  as  appropriate :  If 
Israel  was  wise  religiously,  why  did  its  estab- 
lished church  fall  ? 

The  answer  lies  in  the  divergent  estimates  of 
what  constitutes  success.  Egypt,  Babylonia, 
Assyria,  Rome,  w^here  are  they?  If  the  estab- 
lishment and  maintenance  of  a  stately  church 
and  a  prosperous  state  are  the  true  measure, 
then  Israel  has  failed  both  in  religion  and  in 
politics.  The  colossal  power  of  Rome  destroyed 
the  material  prosperity  of  both  institutions. 
If  the  establishment  of  principles  is  the  true 
criterion  of  success,  then  Israel  has  triumphed 
gloriously.  As  regards  its  church — Christianity 
and  Islam  are  both  her  children,  and  though 
they  may,  at  times,  have  behaved  unfilially, 
they  have  never  w^avered  in  carrying  the  banner 
of  pure  Theism,  as  against  a  corrupt  and  cor- 
6 


78  THE  AM   HA-ARETZ 

rupting  heathenism.  And  so  also  with  regard 
to  the  state.  A  puny  country  like  Judea  could 
not  stand  before  Rome.  If  it  were  re-established 
now,  it  could  not  successfully  resist  the  formid- 
able armies  and  navies  of  any  of  the  great  em- 
pires of  to-day.  This  only  proves,  however,  that 
ten  men  can  overcome  one.  But  the  political 
principles  which  our  ancestors  were  working  out, 
have  become  the  common  property  of  the  civil- 
ized world,  and  tend  daily  to  further  expansion. 
There  is  no  historical  record  of  any  other 
nation  which  as  early  as  a  millennium  before 
the  present  era  had  overcome  the  forces  both  of 
despotism  and  of  imbridled  democracy.  Israel 
alone  had,  with  prophetic  instinct,  anticipated 
the  religious  and  the  political  development  which 
was  to  come  into  its  own  after  thousands  of 
years.  By  a  happy  coincidence  it  gave  to  its 
representative  body  the  very  designation  by 
which  that  of  England  has  for  a  thousand  years 
been  known,  for  the  Am  ha-aretz  of  Palestine  is 
in  name  the  equivalent  of  that  body  so  gloriously 
distinguished  in  English  history — the  Commons 
of  the  Land, — ^the  house  of  Commons, — ^the  Beth 
ha-Am. 


INDEXES 


BIBLICAL  PASSAGES   CONSIDERED 


Genesis.  page 

237 19 

23io 20 

2310-18    21 

23i2    19 

23i3    19 

403    40 

40i3    56,   57 

4019.19   56,  57,  58 

4020    57 

4021    57 

4022    57,  58 

Exodus. 

3l6-18    8 

4io    8 

4i6    8 

429-31       8 

1221    8 

1818-22       10 

197.8       8 

198    9 

20i6    54 

2228    11 

243    9 

247    9 

2921    41 

2926    41 

2927    41 

30i2    56 

Leviticus. 

427    19 

732    41 


Leviticus  (continued)        page 

733     41 

734     41 

I621    66 

2O2   19 

2O4   19 

24i4   66 

2414-16    65 

24i6    66 

Numbers. 

I2    56 

I16   40 

I18   8 

lOs^-8    9 

IO4.3   9 

1116    10 

1116.17    9 

1117    10 

II24   9 

122-16     9 

149    18 

I62.2    40 

2O14-21    12 

20i9    12 

2I21-26    12 

269    40 

277    10 

279    10 

27io    10 

27ii    10 

2716.16    10 

2717.17    10 

2721    67 

366.7   10 


82 


BIBLICAL  PASSAGES  CONSIDERED 


Deuteronomy. 

PAGE 

2  Samuel. 

PAGE 

lie    

70 
65 

38    

67 

139     

I618    

17l4-20       .  . 
17l6      

10 
11 
42 

1  Kings. 

39     

70 

1921      



54 
67 
66 
10 
10 
67 

3lO-28       

3l2      

69 

70 

2O9       

2I1-9       .... 

299    

3128      

336    

3l3      

1017  

15l3      

211-7  

70 

32 

65 

51 

3321    

67 

219   

2111  

2112  

55 

54 

55 

Joshua. 

2113.13    

54 

lio   

10 

2116  

54 

833    

10 

2116  

54 

98-16       .  .  .  . 

13 

9l8      

13 

22 10-34       .  . 

13 

2  Kings. 

24i    

10 

23 

67 

2422-24       .  . 

9 

26     

9l4    

67 

67 

Judges. 

934    

937    

943      

56, 

67 
67 
67 

lOi-ii 67 

11    22 

II5    28,  29 

116.6.6.6.6.6...  27,     28,     29 

II7.7.7  28,  30 

II9    

28 

I.  Samuel. 

Ill4    

19 

8n-18     . . . 

11 

II15.15    

32 

9l2    

41 

1116  .: 

27 

922      

40, 

55 

1118  

19 

923      

40 

1119  

19 

40, 

42 
42 

1120 

19,  25 

1017  

12ii    

23 

1024  

...36,  37, 

42 

1421    

33 

1026     

...36,  37, 

42 
39 

156      

19,  33 

llll  

1616  

19 

13l7.18      .  .  . 

39 

1618  

31 

282    

67 

2I23   ...:... 

33 

BIBLICAL  PASSAGES  CONSIDERED 


83 


2  Kings,  (continued)  page 

2124.24.24 19,    33 

22s    49 

228    49 

22io    49 

2212—2326    49 

236.6   64,  65 

2330    19,   33 

2335 19,  33 

24i4 19,  33 

24i«    33 

253    19,  34 

25i8-2i    67 

2519.19   19,  34 

2522    34 

2525    34 


Isaiah. 


lio 
228 
5I20 


63 
31 
68 


Jeremiah. 

I18    19,  62 

26i-8    45 

262    50 

267    50 

268    50 

269    46,  50 

26io    46 

26ii.ii.li  46,  50 

26i2.i2    50 

2612-15    48 

26l6.16.16     50 

2616-19    49 

2617.17    50 

26i8    50 

26i9    50 

2620-23    48 

2623    64 

2624.24    50 


Jeremiah,    (continued) 

PAGE 

2926    

.  ..    23 

3l6     

..  68 

3140    

...65 

327-16    22 

34i9 19,  62 

36    38 

366    55 

369.9    55 

3610-12    49 

372  19,  59,  62 

378-10    59 

37i3-i9    59 


384 
386 

387-2 

398 

399 

39io 

39i4 

406 

406 


59 
59 
60 
34 
40 
34 
34 
34 
34 


4421  19,  62 

4619-26    59 

526    19 

5224    62 

5226.25.26     62,    19 

5226    67 

5227    67 

5231  56,  58 

EZEKIEL. 

77 61 

726     61 

727    19,   61 

12i9 19,  63 

2I26    68 

2226-29     62 

2229 19,  61 

382    68 

383    68 


84 


BIBLICAL   PASSAGES  CONSIDERED 


EzEKiEL.  (continued)  page   |   Job. 


39i 

39i3 

40i 


Amos. 


67 


MiCAH. 


3u 


Habakkuk. 

13  . 

14  . 


Haggai. 

24 


68 
19 
68 


45i6 19,  62 

4522 19,  62 

46i    62 

462    62 

463  19,  63 

468    63 

469    19,  63 

46io   63 


68 

68 

59 
59 

62 


Psalms. 

10732   63 

IO89    68 


Proverbs. 

l2I 
1323 


68 
68 


ll7    ... 
lie    .. 

122     .. 

1218-24 
1224      .. 

22i2    .. 


Ezra. 


96 


Nehemiah. 

1246 


1  Chronicles. 

1223    ... 

I67    ... 


2  Chronicles. 

15l6  . . . 
23    .... 

23i3  . . . 

2320  ... 

2321  ... 
24i6  ... 
24i6  ... 
2621  ... 
29i6  ... 
30i4  ... 


PAGE 

. .  68 
. .  64 
. .  63 
. .  62 
. .  19 
. .  68 


68 


56 


68 
56 


65 

22 

19 

19 

19 

23 

23 

19 

65 

65 

3326.25      19 


The  Mishnah. 
Bnba  Metzia. 
Yoma.     64    . . . 
Middoth.     54    . 
Sanhedrin.     64 


li 


page 
. .  70 
. .  66 
. .  38 
. .  60 


Talmud  Yerushalmi. 
Sanhedrin, 

Perek  1  Hal.  2 

Perek  1  Hal.  4  (19c).. 


67 

3S 


Talmud  Yerushalmi. 
.(continued) 
Perek  1  Hal.  4.... 
Perek  2  Hal.  5 

Talmud  Babli. 

Yoma.     67b   

Sajihedrin.     16a   . . 


The  New  Testament. 
Matthew.     I614   


PAGE 


43 
43 

66 

67 

44 


INDEX 


PAGE 

Aaron 8,  9,  41 

Abahu    67 

Abraham    20,  21,  22 

Admath   Yisrael    (Am) 63 

Ahab  17,  22,  51,  52 

Ahaz,  King  of  Judah 31 

Ahaziah    22 

Ahikam 49,   50 

Ahuzah    20 

Amar  ha-Cohen   32 

Amaziah    32 

Am  ha-aretz  18,  19,  23,  28,  61 

Political   Power 5f,   19 

Judicial    Power 19,    44 

Its   President 20,   34 

President  sits  in  the  middle 20,  34,  43,  63 

Of  the  Hittites 20 

Called   "The   House" 33 

Enthrones  Saul 36f 

Joash   22f 

Azariah    32 

Josiah    33 

Jehoahaz    33 

Heir-apparent    its    President 33 

President   called   Shophet 33 

Condemns  King  Amon's  Ministei-s 33 

Pays  tribute  of  gold  and  silver 33 

Elim    of,   carried   captive 33 

Dallim  of,  left  at  home 33 

No  bread  for,  in   famine .• 34 

Its  Beth  ha-Am  buraed 34 

Its  Grand  Mai-shal  slain 34 

Sixty  of  its  members  slain 34 

Its  Dallim  endowed  with  confiscated  estates  of  its  Elim  34 


86  INDEX 

PAflE 

See  also: 

Admath  Yisrael. 

Aretz. 

Baim. 

Bene  Israel. 

Cities  of  Judali. 

Cohen  ha-rosh. 

Col  Am-Yehudah. 

Col  ha-Am. 

Col  Kehal  ha-Am. 

Col  Yehudah. 

Comers  from  the  cities  of  Judali. 

Comers  to  the  City  Gate. 

Edah. 

Ha-Am 

Ha-Bayith. 

Ish  Yehudah. 

Ish  Yisrael. 

Rosh. 

Rosh  ha-Keiiiim. 

Rosh  ha-shanah. 

Sarim  and  Am. 

Yoshebe  Yerushalayim. 

Yoshebim. 

Zekenim  and  Horim. 

Zikne  ha-aretz. 

Amon,  King,  slain  by  Ministers 33 

Amon,  His  ministei-s  slain  by  Am .'{3 

Amorites    12 

Amos    ,  16 

Ancient  Temple  Law 32 

Anshe  ha-ir    25 

Antiochus   the   Great 14 

Aretz  ( for  Am  ha-Aretz) 33 

Assyria    15 

Athaliah,  her  downfall 22 

Azariah,  King,  leper,  dies 32,  33,  34 

Azazel    65f 

Baal-woi-ship  23,  24 

Babylon   15,  17,  58 

Bai'm  (delegates  to  Am)    38 


INDEX  87 

PAGE 

Barracks  on  Temple  Hill 27 

Of  the  Royal  Guards 31,  32 

See  Massach,  Masach,  Beth  ha-Yaar,  Musach  ha-Shabbath 

Baruch    38 

Bayith  (See  ha-Bayith) 

Beds  of  Pardon 58 

Bene  ha- Am  (See  Keber  bene  ha- Am) 

Bene    Israel 12 

Berith    24 

Berosh   ha- Am 55,  56 

Beth   ha-Am 34,   35,   36 

Beth  ha-Yaar  (See  House  of  the  Forest  of  Lebanon) .  .26,  31,  32 

Beth  Massach  28,  29,  30,  31 

See  also:  Musach  ha-Shabbath. 
Masach  of  Judah. 

Blasphemy  46,  64f 

Biichler 18 

Caleb   12,  18,  67 

Canaan    12 

Census  (See  Nsa  Rosh). 

Cities  of  Judah    (Am) 50 

City  Am 20,   22 

Cohen  ha-Rosh   24 

Col  Am-Yehudali    50 

Col  ha-Am   50 

Col  Kehal  ha-Am 50 

Col  Y^ehudah  (Am)    49,  50 

Comers  from  the  Cities  of  Judah    (Am) 55 

Comei-s  to  the  City  Gate 21,   72 

Commons — of  England    78 

House   of 78 

Constitutional    Limitations    11 

In  Northern  Kingdom 51,  54 

In  Southern  Kingdom 49,  59f,  74 

Council  (Am,  Zekenim). 

Universally  known    8 

Bi-Cameral    7,  9,  46f,  74f 

Dallath  33,  34,  74,  76 

Dallim 33,  34,  74,  76 


88  INDEX 

Daughters  of  Zelophehad 10 

David 17 

Diplomatic   usage 12 

East  Jordanie  Tribes 13 

Edah  7,  9,  10,  12,  13,  40 

Form   of   resolution 9 

Is  the  High  Court 10 

Moses  its   President 10 

Political  Powers 12 

Edom 12 

Egypt   11,  15,  35,  48,  58,  59 

Elders  (See  Zekenim). 

Elijah   44,  53 

Elim  33,  74 

Elohim    (Judges)    11 

Eloquence  necessary  for  Nasi 8 

Ephron   20,  21 

Evil-Merodach    58 

Ezekiel  16,  61,  63 

Ezra    16 

False  Prophets    30 

Fonns  and  Formulae 

Amar  ha-Cohen,  q.  v. 

The  priest   declares  =  The  law  is : 
Deed 

to  Abraham. 

(See  Am  ha-aretz  of  Hittites.) 
Edah's  adoption  of  resolution. 

Na'aseh  etc  =  Carried,  It  is  a  vote. 

(See  Edah) 
Ha-Am  Karathi,  q.  v. 

(Form  of  opening  session) 
Judgment,  q.  v. 

In  Jeremiah's  Case. 

Solomon's. 
Kiru  tzom,  q.  v. 
Precedents,  g.  v. 

Citing. 
Proceedings  of  Assembly. 

See  Saul,  Moed, 

Tabbach,  Rosh  ha-Keruim. 


INDEX  89 

PAGE 

Gates  in  South  Wall  of  Temple  Court 27 

Sur  27,  30 

Ratzim    27,   30 

Palace  Gate 27   30 

New  Gate   46 

Gedaliah,  Viceroy   34    49 

Slain    34 

Gemariah     3.S 

Gerusia    14 

Gibborim,  Royal  Guard , 29,  30,  31 

Gibeonites    12,   13 

Government    9 

Grand  Mai'shal  of  Am  ha-aretz 34 

Great   Synagogue    14 

Guards.     See  Gibborim,  Royal  Guards,  Temple  Guards. 

Ha- Am,  short  for  Am  ha-aretz 50 

Ha- Am  Karatlii.     Formula  to  open  the  session 42 

Ha-Bayith  (the  Am)    33 

Haggai    62 

Hebron    ; 20 

Hezekiah    49 

High  Priest    7,  23 

Hilkiah    49 

Horim    52 

Hosea   16,  53 

Hittites    20 

House    (the   Am) 33 

House  of  the   Forest  of  I^banon 26,   29,  31,  32 

Inheritance   Laws    10 

Inter-tribal   relations    10 

Isaiah   16,  63 

Ish-Yehudah    (Am)    38 

Ish- Yisrael   ( Am )    12 

Ishmael    • ^^ 

Israel   8,  12,  13 

Jehoahaz,  enthroned  and  dethroned 33 

Jehoiaehin,   King,   captured 33 

Released  from  prison 58 


90  INDEX 

PAGE 

Jehoiada   23f 

Jehoiakim,  King  by  Egypt's  power 33,  45,  -iS 

Exacts  tribute  from  Am  ha-aretz 33 

Jeboram,  King  of  Judab 22 

Jebosbeba    23 

Jebu,  King  of  Israel 53 

Jeremiah  16,  17,  34,  35,  60,  62 

Trial  for  treason 44f 

His  defence    47 

His  acquittal    50 

Jerusalem 22,  25,  26,  31,  33,  45 

Jetbro 8,  9 

Jezebel    22,  51,  53 

Joasb,   King    22f 

Job    62,    63 

Jonathan  ben  Eleazar 67 

Josbua   12,  13,  18 

Josiah   33,  45,  49 

Jotbam,  President  of  tbe  House 33 

Shopbet  of  the  Am  ba-ai-etz 33 

King    33 

Judges   10,  14 

Judgment  in  Jeremiah's  case,  form  of 50 

by  Solomon    70 

Judicial  Function   10,  44 

Kari    27 

Keber  bene  ba-Am 64f 

Kedor-Laomer    20 

Keniim   (See  Rosb  ha-Keniim). 

Kibre  bene  ha- Am 64f 

Kidron    65 

Kimchi,    David    55 

Kimchi,    Joseph    55 

Kimchi  Moses    55 

King,    Constitutional    Monarch 11 

King's  Law    11 

Samuel    writes   it 42 

Travestied    11 

Tombs  of   23 

King's   palace    26 

Kiru  tzom  (Convoke  tbe  Assembly)    52,  54,  55 


INDEX  91 

PAGE 

Land  Laws  20 

Levi    g 

Leze  majesty  n^  51 

Lishcah  Meeting-Hall  37,  38,  39,  46,  49 

R^ehabites  meet  there  with  Committee  of  Am 38 

Literary  Allusions. 

Am  ha-aretz  61f 

Rosh   62,  67f 

Luzzatto    55 

Magog    67 

Manah    40    41 

Masach   of   Judah 31 

Barracks  of  Royal  Guard 31 

See  also  House  of  the  Forest  of  Lebanon. 

Beth  ha-Ya'ar. 

Beth  Massach. 

Musaeh  ha-Shabbath. 
Massach  (See  Beth  Massach). 

Mattan,  the  Baal  priest 24 

Megiddo    33 

Melech    7 

Micah    49 

Mikneh    20 

Miriam    9 

Mishnah,  Early 69,  71 

Mishpachah    10 

Mishpat  Maveth   (Death  Penalty) 46 

Moed    40 

Moses  8,  9,  12,  44 

Musaeh  ha-Shabbath    31 

Barracks  of   Temple   Guards 31 

Na'aseh    9 

Na'aseh    ve-nishma'    9 

Na'avod — Nishma'     9 

Naboth,  Trial  of 51f 

Nasi    7,  11 

President  of  Edah 7,  10,  11 

President   of   Sanhedrin 43 


92  INDEX 

PAGE 

National  Assembly  (See  Edah). 

Nebuchadnezzar   33,  40 

Nebuzaradan    34 

Neclioh   (Phai'aoh)    33 

Nehemiah    16 

Nesiim    7,  9,   13 

New  Gate  (Sarira's  Seat) 46 

Nishar    ; ...  42 

Nsa  Rosh   56 

Taking  the  Census 56 

Appealing  a  case. 57,  59 

Numbering  tribes    8. 

Oral  Law   72£ 

Palaee   30,  32,  33 

Palestine    17,  18 

Pardon 57,  58 

Pai'doning  Power  of  King  Limited 59 

Pariiament   17,  18,  19 

Political   Powers    7,  17 

Judicial  Powers   10,  17 

Parliament   House  Burned 34 

Paschal   Service    8 

People  of  the  Land 25 

Pharaoh  Nechoh   33 

Phineas 13 

Place  of   Execution 65 

Preeedents 48,  70 

Cited  in  Jeremiali's  trial 48,  49 

Priests    9,   14f 

Convoke  the  Edah  by  trumpets 9 

Prophets    \ 14f,  44 

False    16 

Writing 16 

Psalms    63 

Ratzim   (Temple  Guards) 27,  30 

See  also  Gates. 

Rechabites    38 

Riblah    34 


INDEX  95 

PAGE 

^^^^  •  •  •  • 39,  61,  67 

Of  Singei-s   5q 

Receive   psalms    5g 

Rosh  ha-Keruim   (Am) 35 

Rosh  Iia-shanah g7 

Rothstein    23 

Royal  Guards   (See  Gibborim). 

Sabbath    27    28 

Comei-s   into — Relieved   squad 29 

Goei-s  out  of.     Relieving  squad 29 

Samuel   36,  37 

Sanhedrin     14 

Its  functions    43 

Meet  in   Lishcah    38 

Sat  in  semi-circle 43 

Sar  ha-tzabali  captured 34 

Sarah 20 

Sarim   (Upper  House)    '. 38,  49,  74 

Sit  with  Zekenira 44,  46 

(See  Horim) 

Control  King  Zedekiah 59,  60 

Sarim    ve-col    ha-Am 50 

Saul  first  King  of  Israel 36f 

Scapegoat    66 

Sefarim     52 

Sepher  ha-Torah    49 

Septuagint     40 

Sessions    56 

Shaphan    49 

Shiloh    13,   45 

Shok 41 

Sliophet     7 

President  of  the  Edah 7,  10,  11 

President   of   the   Am   ha-aretz 33 

Shoterim    10 

Sihon  the  Amorite  King 12 

Smith,  George  Adam 26 

Sofer  of  Am 49 

Solomon's  Judgment    69 

Is  travesty  of  early  Mishnah 69 

7 


94  INDEX 

PAGE 

Stade    26 

Sur  (See  Gates). 

Tabbach  at  Samuel's  Court 36,  40,  42 

Tabbachim  Sar  ha-    40 

Rab-    40 

Temple    26 

Burned    34 

HUl  23,  31 

Guards  (See  Ratzim). 

Testimony,  Power  of 34 

Tiglath-Pileser    3i 

Tombs  of  the  Kings 23 

Tribal  Am    73 

Tribal  Lands,  .not  to  be  aliened  to  other  tribe 10 

Tribunes  of  the  People 16,  75 

Tyie    54 

Uriah,  Prophet 48,  64 

Witnesses    54 

Words  defined  (which  see). 

Admath  Yisrael. 
ha- Am. 

Am  ha-aretz. 

Aretz. 

Bairn. 
ha-Bayith. 

Bene  ha- Am  (Kibre). 

Bene  Israel. 

Berosh  ha-Am. 

Beth  ha-Am. 

Beth  ha-Ya'ar. 

Beth  Massach. 

Cities  of  Judah. 

City  Am. 

Cohen  ha-rosh. 

Col  Am-Yehudah. 

Col  ha-Am. 

Col  Kehal  ha-Am. 

Col  Yehudah. 


INDEX  95 


Words  defined   (which  see) — continued. 
Comers  from  the  cities  of  Judah. 
Gomel's  to  the  City  Gate. 
Dallath. 
Dallim. 
Edah. 
EUm. 
Ha-Am. 

Ha- Am  Karathi. 
Ha-Bayith. 
Hoiim. 
House. 

Ish  Yehudah. 
Ish  Yisraeh 
Keber  bene  ha- Am. 
Keruim. 

Kibre  bene  ha-Am. 
Kiru  tzom. 
Lishcah. 
Manah. 
Masach. 
Massach. 
Moed. 

Musaeh  ha-shabbatli. 
Nasi. 
Nesiim. 
Nishar. 
Nsa  Rosh. 

People  of  the  Land. 
Ratzim. 
Rosh. 

Rosh  ha-Keniim. 
Rosh  ha-shanah. 
Sabbath. 
Sarim. 

Sarim   and   Am. 
Shok. 
Shophet, 
Sofer. 
Tabbach. 


96  INDEX 

PAGE 

Words  detined   (which  see) — continued. 
Tabbachim  Sax  ha- 

Rab- 
Yom  tzom. 
Yosheb  betoch. 
Yoshebe  Yerushalayim. 
Yoshebim. 
Zekenim. 

Zekenim  and  Horim. 
Zikne  ha-aretz. 

Yoin  tzom   38 

Yosheb   betoch    (President) 20 

Yoshebe  Yerushalayim   (Am)    38,  63 

Yoshebim  (Am)   22,  52 

Zangwill    18 

Zebaeh    ..." 41 

Zechariah,  President  of  Am 24 

Zedekiah,  King 33,  45,  58 

Captured    34 

Blinded  and  carried  t-o  Babylon 34 

Zekenim    7,   8,   9,  52 

Zekenim  and  Horim  (Am  of  the  Northern  Kingdom) 53 

Zelophehad's  Daughters  10 

Zikn^  ha-aretz  (Am)    50 


• 


